Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Part-time Workers (Probationary Training)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he realises that the absence of any provision for probationary training by certain trade unions, details of which have been supplied to him, prevents the employment of part-time and spare-time workers; and what steps he is taking to obviate this waste of national effort?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have written to my hon. Friend. According to my information the difficulty in the case to which he drew my attention was not due to the absence of provision for probationary training.

Mr. Hammersley: In view of the fact that for some considerable time 30 part-time workers have been engaged in manufacturing essential munitions of war and that because of the difficulties in arranging the correct rate of pay this part-time work has had to be stopped, is it not wrong that this state of affairs should continue? Should not something be done to make arrangements for this part-time work?

Mr. Bevin: That point is not in my hon. Friend's Question. He asked me whether it was due to the absence of probationary training. I know the difficulties, about which I have written him, but they are not due to the cause mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Hammersley: I must give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity

Conscientious Objectors (Teachers)

Professor Gruffydd: asked the Minister of Labour how many trained teachers have been sent by conscientious objectors' tribunals to work on the land; and whether as this is a serious waste of national effort, in view of the shortage of teachers, he will take steps to get the teachers back to the schools?

Mr. Bevin: I regret that the information asked for is not available. As regards the second part of the Question, it rests with the tribunals to prescribe the work to be done as a condition of registration, and I have no power to vary their decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE

Hardship Committees

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that Military Service (Hardship) Committees are composed of entirely impartial and independent persons and are, in fact, selected for these reasons?

Mr. Bevin: The composition of Military Service (Hardship) Committees is prescribed in Part II of the Schedule to the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. I have every reason to believe that members of these committees are carrying out their duties in an impartial manner.

Commander Galbraith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow Trades Council is seeking to exercise control aver these committees and has issued instructions to members of the committees as to how they should act under various circumstances? Does my right hon. Friend approve of such action?

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars, I will look into the matter, but I have never heard of it.

Major Lloyd: If I send the documents to the right hon. Gentleman, will he take action to prevent an unauthorised body of this character attempting to influence hardship committees?

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that he does not interfere with legitimate action taken by Glasgow Trades Council to secure the interests of the workers?

Home Guard

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider making arrangements whereby suitable men who fail to pass the medical examination for military service are considered for direction into the Home Guard?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, this matter is receiving consideration.

Mr. Palmer: Can the right lion. Gentleman say when he will be able to make an announcement?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot say offhand.

Applications for Postponement

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will instruct Military Service (Hardship) Committees that, when interviewing applicants for deferment, they should not request that the relations for whom such applicants keep house should move into lodgings and dispose of their household effects;
(2) whether he will instruct Military Service (Hardship) Committees to grant deferment to the daughter of a widower if she is the only female relative available to look after his house?

Mr. Bevin: I have no authority to issue such instructions to the Military Service (Hardship) Committees. It is the duty of the committees to consider applications for postponement in accordance with the principles laid down in the National Service (Postponement Certificates) Regulations, as interpreted by the Umpire. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a leading decision recently given by the Umpire to indicate the circumstances in which postponement should be granted to the daughter keeping house for a widower father. The principles laid down in that decision would be applicable to the sort of case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in his Question No. 7.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rents

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what response he has had to his appeal to local authorities urging them to take steps to protect the people against the evasions of the Rent Acts; and whether he can give particulars

of the number of authorities which are taking effective steps in this matter and with what results?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The response has been most satisfactory. No less than 737 local authorities have asked to be supplied with copies of the poster I had prepared a short time ago drawing attention to the salient features of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Reports I have recently received from local authorities for the period 1st April to 31st December, 1942, indicate that they received 4,028 complaints relating to unfurnished lettings of which 2,505 were proved on inquiry to be unfounded. Of the remaining 1,523 cases, rent reductions were secured in 1,479, or rather more than 97 per cent., the reductions ranging from a few pence to as much as 9s. per week. Twenty-nine prosecutions were undertaken by the authorities, 28 for rent book offences and one for charging a premium. All these prosecutions were successful. As regards furnished lettings, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) on 22nd April; of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Griffiths: What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take with those councils, many of which are in rural areas where a good many of these complaints come from, who have not taken any action in response to his appeal?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me some information about that. I will certainly make inquiries.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that 29 prosecutions bear any substantial relation to the number of offences of this kind which are being committed, up and down the country?

Mr. Brown: Local authorities are very active in this matter and have dealt with over 4,000 complaints, which is a very large number.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: How many of these local authorities are located in London?

Mr. Brown: That is another matter.

Mr. George Grifftihs: Will the Minister instruct local authorities to display all


round their areas this poster, which is the most useful poster he has ever sent out in his life?

Mr. Brown: I would not like to accept it in that way, but I will certainly see that the poster is displayed everywhere.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health how many houses in the scheme for building 3,000 houses for agricultural workers have been allocated to the county of Durham?

Mr. E. Brown: 36, Sir.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether full consideration has been given for securing maximum amenities of domestic lighting, space, heating, cooking and hot water supply in the 3,000 cottages being provided for agricultural workers?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate in this House on 4th May, in which I explained that the plans had been drawn up after the fullest and most detailed consideration of all the factors which he mentions.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the proposed erection of 3,000 cottages for agricultural workers, he will take steps to ensure the co-ordination of the four Departments concerned, namely, the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Labour and Works, with special reference as regards the Ministry of Works to the adaptation and use of flying squads who could provide the necessary labour, transport and material-in those localities where the work was held up for lack of these?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave him on 18th March last. As regards the last part, all necessary steps will taken, within the limits of existing supplies, to meet the need for labour and materials wherever there is any fear that work might be held up.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that so many Departments are concerned that there is no one man With power to see the whole matter through? Is not the matter being unnecessarily delayed?

Would my right hon. Friend consider appointing Lord Beaverbrook, because he has ability in that direction and it might keep him out of mischief?

Mr. Bossom: Have any of the cottages yet been started?

Mr. Attlee: Any question with regard to the details should be put to the Minister concerned.

Mr. David Adams: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that some of these cottages will be erected?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question to the Minister of Health.

Disabled Ex-Service Men

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether he will ensure that disabled ex-service men are given the same priority for houses by local authorities as is now given to persons bombed out of their homes?

Mr. E. Brown: The need for accommodation for persons rendered homeless by enemy action may arise at any time, and local authorities must be in a position to deal with the situation immediately. For this reason it has been considered necessary in certain areas to maintain a reserve of houses, the number of which is under constant review. Subject to this, local authorities endeavour to give consideration in regard to any accommodation which may be available to cases of exceptional hardship among which the men to whom my hon. Friend refers obviously take a high place.

Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of men who have been discharged from the Army owing to injuries caused by enemy action find that they are put at the bottom of the list when being considered for new houses, and priority is given to people who have been bombed out? Should it not be a question of "First come first served"?

Mr. Brown: I think people who have been bombed out must have first priority in these cases. A Member of this House called my attention to a particular case in the constituency represented by him only three weeks ago, complaining about certain houses, and within a week those houses were wanted.

Mr. Bossom: Cannot my right hon. Friend give this matter further consideration, because it is most unfair when a man who has had to give up his house on being called up comes back to find that it has been ruined and he has no place to which to go?

Mr. Brown: I have shown by my answer that I am most sympathetic to these cases, and I know that the local authorities are.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I do not press for a reply to-day, but will the Minister consider whether, instead of providing for the hypothetical eventuality of bombed-out people, it would not be better to use those houses for disabled men and war workers?

Mr. Brown: The answer to my hon. Friend is that there has been nothing hypothetical about the raids on many towns in this country, and if anything happened in the Chislehurst Division and there was not accommodation for the bombed-out persons, my hon. Friend would be the first to complain.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Tuberculosis

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of tuberculosis notified during the past year; if he will give separate figures for Wales, the comparable figures for 1938 and 1941, and indicate whether any particular age group shows an increase?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Birth-Rate

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider setting up a small expert commission to investigate the causes of the recent rise in the birthrate, especially whether or not it is likely to be permanent and its bearing on postwar organisation, especially in connection with the Beveridge Report?

Mr. E. Brown: I doubt whether long-range conclusions of any value could be reached with respect to post-war birth rates on the basis of the war-time birth rate movements under the abnormal war conditions; and I do not think that any

useful purpose would be served by the appointment, in present circumstances, of the commission suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not necessary to have careful inquiry into the trend of population before we can in any circumstances adopt the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Brown: Any inquiry would need to be over such a period and on such a basis that it dealt not with abnormal war conditions alone but with the general trend.

Miss Rathbone: Are not the facts of the trend of population perfectly well known to economic experts, so that the appointment of a committee would be time-wasting?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will realise that feelings about facts sometimes differ.

Milk-borne Diseases

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether, in intensifying the offensive against pulmonary tuberculosis by mass radiography and appropriate treatment, together with certain financial allowances, he intends to extend these remedial measures to sufferers from non-pulmonary tuberculosis and other diseases acquired by consumers of infected milk supplied under the authority of the Ministry of Food, and which milk cannot be rejected by medical officers of health?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to my previous statement in reply to his Question on 15th April.

Mr. Adams: As the previous statement made no definite reference to remedial measures on the lines mentioned in the Question, cannot we have something more specific?

Mr. Brown: There is a difference between pulmonary and non-pulmonary tuberculosis, in that the former is probably unique among common disease in combining great importance of early treatment with danger to the community if the disease is allowed to develop. The second factor is not present in non-pulmonary tuberculosis.

Mr. Adams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that scientific opinion is clearly in favour of early remedial


measures with regard to non-pulmonary tuberculosis?

Mr. Brown: Our resources in this matter are limited, and it is my judgment that it is more important to deal with pulmonary than with non-pulmonary tuberculosis at this stage.

Dr. Russell Thomas: In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, in view of the fact that the clinical symptons and pathological processes of all forms of tuberculosis are absolutely identical and indistinguishable, no matter what their supposed origin, does he not think that with this in mind the hon. Member's Question is completely pointless?

National Health Service

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether steps will be taken as far as practicable to enable medical men, women and nurses serving with the Fighting Forces abroad to express their views in the discussions now proceeding on the future of medical and health services, especially seeing that these discussions go beyond anything contemplated before the war, and that the success of any new type of services will be impossible without their co-operation?

Mr. E. Brown: I contemplate publishing as soon as practicable a statement of the general nature of the Government's proposals, which will enable everybody, including men and women in the Forces, to see for themselves what is suggested and to discuss and, if necessary, criticise them before the stage of legislation is reached.

Sir P. Hurd: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be practicable for him to get this detailed information into the hands of doctors and nurses overseas who will be affected?

Mr. Brown: I think that in this matter there should not be undue difficulty. As my hon. Friend will know, the several professions have verb clear and regulated channels of communication.

Sir P. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend remember that these proposals do go outside anything which was before the profession before the war?

Mr. Brown: That is understood.

National Health Insurance

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Health whether, as the weekly sums being paid as sick benefit under the Health Insurance Act to persons unable to work owing to ill-health are inadequate to provide the necessaries of life, apart from the special sick nourishment they require, he will take immediate steps to make such provision for these persons as will raise them above the bare margin of existence?

Mr. E. Brown: The provision to be made during sickness and invalidity is, as my hon. Friend is aware, receiving consideration in connection with the Government's examination of the proposals contained in Sir William Beveridge's Report.

Dr. Little: This matter is very urgent, and does my right hon. Friend consider that it is worthy of our country that so many of those who have paid for sickness benefits should be deprived of the bare necessities of life and have to go to public assistance committees to obtain enough for their bare existence? To me it is a crying shame.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will increase the rate of the attendant allowance and extend it to all men of both wars who have been disabled in the highest degree?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): This Question relates to one of the matters raised in the recent Debate to which, as I then undertook, I am giving consideration.

Sir I. Fraser: How many weeks must my right hon. Friend reasonably need before he will be in a position to tell us the result of his consideration of all the matters raised in that Debate?

Sir W. Womersley: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, a large number of matters were raised in that Debate, and I must consider them as a whole and also separately, and I cannot give any definite date.

Sir I. Fraser: -Could not the right hon. Gentleman say approximately the date? Will it be a matter of weeks or months?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has studied the declaration of policy submitted by the British Legion (Scotland); and whether he can make a statement?

Sir W. Womersley: The declaration, which involves fundamental changes in the pensions system, only reached me a few days ago. I am not at present prepared to express an opinion on it.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Can my right hon. Friend state any time within which he will be able to make a statement?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir.

Major Lyons: Is it not time that the whole pensions system was overhauled on lines which have already been recommended by a Committee of this House?

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will arrange to increase the allowances to neurosis patients who accept his offer of hospital treatment, in order that their homes may be maintained during their absence?

Sir W. Womersley: The provision for cases in which the neurosis is accepted as attributable to or aggravated by service is the same as in all cases of other accepted disabilities and is at the rates laid down in the Royal Warrant. Where the neurosis is not accepted as attributable to or aggravated by service and, therefore, the Warrant allowances are not payable, special provision is made which places the patient in approximately the same position as the war injured civilian in receipt of injury allowances during a period of incapacity for work and the person in receipt of Workmen's Compensation for total incapacity. The provision in both classes of case seems to me reasonable.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these persons are asked to go to hospital as a measure which will be good for them, but have to leave their homes and their wives with only £I per week for their maintenance?

Sir W. Womersley: No. I think I had better send the hon. Member a full list of the allowances. It is rather too long to read out now.

Mr. Mathers: May I say that I shall be glad to have that list, because in the

particular case I have in mind I have confirmed the fact that £1 was what a man was asked to accept in going to hospital?

Sir W. Womersley: Will the hon. Member send me particulars of that case? I should like to look into it.

Mr. Mathers: I have already done so.

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Pensions when the Pensions Appeal Tribunal will be set up in Northern Ireland; and whether all dissatisfied with the decisions of his Department for the past years will have the right of appeal to that tribunal?

Sir W. Womersley: A Pensions Appeal Tribunal will be set up in Northern Ireland as soon as possible after the Bill which is in course of preparation becomes law, and there will be a right of appeal against past decisions of my Department on appealable issues.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend see that all aggrieved in this matter shall sooner or later have a right of appeal to this tribunal in Northern Ireland?

Sir W. Womersley: I have already said that.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Mr. Jawarharlal Nehru

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Jawarharlal Nehru is under detention in India or has been transferred to another area; whether he is completely isolated from other Congress leaders; and whether communications can be sent to and received by him?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Mr. Nehru is under detention in India and is in the company of other members of the Congress Working Committee. He is permitted to correspond with members of his family on domestic matters.

Mr. Sorensen: Could Members of this House also communicate with him?

Mr. Amery: On domestic matters and if they are members of the family.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether Members of this House might please communicate with him on other matters, provided they supplied the right hon. Gentleman with a copy of the letter?

Mr. Amery: That is a matter for the Government of India.

Mr. Fazl Huq (Resignation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has a copy of the letter of resignation prepared by the Governor for signature by Mr. Fazl Huq, late Premier of Bengal; whether he has considered the protests from the Progressive Coalition Party of Bengal against the enforced resignation of Mr. Huq; and whether consideration has been given to the statement of Mr. Huq that he commands a majority of the Legislature, and is prepared to co-operate in establishing an all-parties government in Bengal?

Mr. Amery: I have no copy of the letter of resignation signed by Mr. Huq nor of any draft, and have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 8th April.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that a certain amount of pressure was, in fact, exerted on this gentleman, and will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries and give a report to this House as to the circumstances under which Mr. Huq was required to resign?

Mr. Amery: It was not any question of being required to resign; and in any case the matter is one dealt with in the Parliament of Bengal.

Political Situation

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of recent events in India, he will take the opportunity of endeavouring to bring all parties there into a negotiation with His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Amery: I regret to say that there have not been any recent developments that would hold out a prospect of such negotiations leading to any fruitful results.

Mr. Martin: While I appreciate the difficulties which beset my right hon. Friend, will he not consider whether, in view of the gravity of the issues involved, we have not now reached a time when the Government of India might take a more constructive line?

Mr. Amery: I am considering these problems all the time.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I have received an invitation to visit India, and if he will ensure that I get a permit to go there, I will see into things?

White Immigrants from South Africa

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to pass, with respect to India, a trading and occupation of land restriction Bill, to operate against white immigrants from the Union of South Africa, similar to that against Indians which is now before the South African Parliament?

Mr. Amery: I understand that a private Member's Bill was introduced some time ago which, if enacted, would give the Government of India powers of the kind indicated by the hon. Member; but I am not aware of the present position of the Bill nor of the Government of India's attitude towards the Measure.

Mr. Sloan: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to speed up that Measure in view of the regulations being passed against Indians in South Africa?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid that it is not my duty to speed up Bills in another Parliament.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any further information regarding legislation affecting Indians in South Africa?

Mr. Amery: None that has not appeared publicly.

MOTORING CONVICTIONS, LONDON (APPEALS)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of appeals against convictions for motoring offences which came before the appeals committee of the London Sessions in 1942; the number which were dismissed; the number in which the penalties were reduced; and the number in which the penalties were increased?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the convictions in our courts are severe enough, in view of the loss of life, and should not the attention of the courts be called to the very serious loss of life?

Mr. Morrison: I hardly think that it would be desirable for me to make any general observations about how the courts do their business.

Following is the Table:

The appeals to the County of London Quarter Sessions during 1942 against convictions for motoring offences numbered 21. The results were as follow:

Convictions affirmed—without modification of sentence
12


Convictions affirmed—penalty increased
1


Convictions affirmed—penalty reduced
4


Convictions quashed
2


Appeal abandoned
2



21

DETAINEES, ISLE OF MAN

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary how many persons are now interned or detained in the Isle of Man camps; how many officers and rankers, respectively, of the Army and the police force and other civilians are engaged in the work of the camps; and whether he is satisfied that in the case of at least some of the camps the staffing is not excessive?

Mr. H. Morrison: There are, at present, approximately 3,300 persons interned under the Royal Prerogative, and 600 detained under the Defence Regulations or the Aliens Order, and there are, in addition, over 100 children. The administration as well as the guarding of the camps is carried out chiefly by military personnel, and, as it would not be in the public interest to state their number, I do not think that there are any figures that I can usefully give to my hon. Friend in reply to the second part of her Question. All the various staffs of the camps are constantly under review, with a view to adjusting the numbers to the needs, and, certain reductions are at present in contemplation.

FIRE GUARDS

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Home Secretary when he is likely to be

in a position to announce the decisions of the Government in relation to the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on Fire Guards?

Mr. H. Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, the Report from the Select Committee has only recently been received. I am giving it consideration.

Mr. Hammersley: Can the Minister give any indication to the House when he is likely to be able to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I am afraid I could not do so, but I contemplate that some consultation must take place, and I cannot be sure how long the consultation will take.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Home Secretary what restrictions are imposed on allied and alien personnel in this country in respect of the Compulsory Fire-Watching Order?

Mr. H. Morrison: Aliens are not at present liable for compulsory fire guard duties, but, as I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. W. H. Green) on 4th February last, it is proposed to render certain classes of aliens liable for such duties subject to certain conditions, and an Order for this purpose will be issued as soon as the necessary consultations have been completed. In the meantime, it is open to any alien, who is exempted from the curfew restrictions imposed by the Aliens (Restriction of Movement) Order, to volunteer for such duties.

Sir T. Moore: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend to ensure that our women are not in future to be called upon to look after the safety of foreign men, whether they are aliens or Allies?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I could give an unequivocal answer to that question.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that a great number of aliens are only too anxious to take up these duties and are very mortified at being excluded, and that some of them are not merely 35 but are about double that age?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, it is true that a considerable


number of aliens are voluntarily fire watching, but it is the case that a fair number who could voluntarily do it are not doing so.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the dissatisfaction among various sections and classes of women with the Compulsory Fire-Watching Order he will consider amending the Order so as to provide that no woman over 35 years of age will be called on to fire-watch unless she volunteers to do so and that all women will be given equal opportunity of fire watching at their homes or business premises?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. In view of the need for fire guards, I could not contemplate a reduction of the present age limit for compulsion for women. For the same reason it is not practicable to allow women to choose where they will perform their fire guard duties, but they will only be required to do so at their place of work if insufficient men are available for the purpose.

Sir T. Moore: My right hon. Friend must realise that there are certain disabilities to which women are prone when over 35. Under those circumstances it is very much disliked and resented by women at that period and also very much disliked by men. Would he not reconsider this matter and establish an age limit over and above which women should not be called upon?

Mr. Morrison: That point has, of course, been considered, and I have made inquiries, as well as one can. I am advised by many women that the men worry much more about it than the women do.

POLICE (MILITARY SERVICE)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Home Secretary why members of the regular police force are being called to the Armed Services and younger men of the war reserve police retained?

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. The police war reservists who have been retained are those who were over 30 on 1st May, 1942; whereas the call up of regular police under the National Service

Acts applies to men under 25 at the date of registration, that is, to men born after 9th March, 1915.

SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Major Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of all the relevant circumstances, His Majesty's Government will now introduce an increased scale of pay and allowances for soldiers, sailors and airmen?

Mr. Attlee: This matter was very fully examined by the Government in the summer of last year, and as a result a number of general increases were announced by my right hon. Friend the then Lord Privy Seal on l0th September last. It was explained that the Government were unanimously of the opinion that with the additions then made substantial justice would be done to all ranks of the Services and that the rates of pay should be stabilised at the new level so long as prices remain at the existing level. His Majesty's Government do not now see any ground for departing from that opinion.

Major Lyons: In view of the fact that these proposals fail to meet the position and that there is great public concern about this serious matter, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not reconsider the matter broadly?

Captain C. S. Taylor: Before the right hon. Gentleman does so, will he remember that the last Budget increased the price of beer and cigarettes?

UNITED NATIONS (CONSULTATION)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider the advisability of holding a conference, or of establishing some kind of council, of the United Nations, with the object of achieving a measure of agreement about political, as distinct from purely military, objectives?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent events, new methods of obtaining the maximum of unity between the Allied Governments are in operation?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I am satisfied that, having regard to the geographical and


other factors involved, existing methods of consultation among the United Nations are for the present the best that can be devised.

Mr. Boothby: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that if better machinery for consultation between the Allies had existed, certain recent regrettable developments might have been prevented?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear that existing methods of consultation do not prevent differences? As political issues impinge on the war situation, is it not desirable to have machinery to reconcile differences that occur?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think my hon. Friend is logical. The fact that differences arise is not necessarily cured by a particular kind of machinery. There has been no suggestion that differences will be prevented by any other machinery than that which we have at present.

Mr. Shinwell: In that event, in view of what recently occurred, and particularly in view of the fact that the differences have not been reconciled, is machinery not in being to deal with that situation and any new situation that might emerge?

Mr. Attlee: I have already replied to that point. In the opinion of the Government the present methods of consultation and the present machinery are the best that can be devised under present circumstances.

Mr. Boothby: Surely it is better to thrash out differences in private than in public?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend is wrong. That is the method.

Mr. Stephen: Would not the Minister have a private consultation with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) instead of raising the matter in public?

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY

Major McCallum: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a considerable number of country-bred women with agricultural experience, other than those of conscription age, are lost to the agricultural industry as they

are not allowed to enrol in the Women's Land Army and prefer to join one of the other Services open to women rather than stay on the land because in those Services they are supplied with clothing, boots, and other equipment free of charge and without having to surrender clothing coupons; and whether he will consider amending existing Regulations to permit of these women joining the Women's Land Army?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No, Sir. Regular women agricultural workers are not called up by the Ministry of Labour under the National Service Acts or the Registration for Employment Order, and I do not think that any appreciable number of them are offering themselves for the women's Services for the reason mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. The reasons for not enrolling women agricultural workers in the Women's Land Army were explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Kerr) on 4th February, 1943.

Major McCollum: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is a grievance among a large number of these women, whom I might call civilian women, that the women of the Land Army should receive clothing and equipment, since 1st January, 1943, equivalent to 107 coupons? How is it possible for any ordinary woman to provide herself with clothing and equipment on the present clothing ration?

Mr. Hudson: My hon. and gallant Friend, like some other people, is labouring under a misapprehension. Perhaps he had better read exactly what is the situation. He would then realise that agricultural workers who earn their permanent living in agriculture are not really under any disadvantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Administrative Areas

Mr. Oliver: asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is his intention to institute an impartial inquiry before introducing a Bill dealing with the question of educational administrative areas?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) on 21st January last, I invited my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio to advise me on this matter, and I am now considering the advice which he has given me. I have therefore nothing further to add to this reply at present.

Mr. Oliver: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to publish the proposals before they are embodied in any Bill which comes before this House?

Mr. Butler: I think it is important for the House and the public to see all my proposals together. When the time comes I can assure the hon. Member there will be plenty of time to look at them and express opinions on them.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of the smaller authorities are some of the most progressive and efficient and will very much resent being legislated out of existence in the interests of larger and less efficient authorities?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the excellent work done by many of the Part 3 authorities—by the Part 3 authorities as a whole—and it is not my idea to cut away local interests in education.

London County Council Teachers (Other Work)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Education how many qualified and unqualified teachers employed by the London County Council are engaged in work other than that of teaching?

Mr. Butler: One thousand four hundred and forty-five elementary and secondary school teachers employed by the L.C.C. are engaged in work other than that of teaching.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the shortage of teachers, will the right hon. Gentleman try to find out how many L.C.C. teachers are employed in the meals centres, and get them returned to the work for which they were trained and are paid?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I have made some inquiries, and I find that very few are now working in the Londoners' Meals

Service. They are doing valuable work there, but I agree that the work of teaching is most important at the present time.

Elementary Schools (Cost)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Education the cost to the State in elementary schools per child in 1913 and at the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. Butler: The cost to the Exchequer per child in average attendance in elementary schools in 1913–14 was £2 3s. 8d. In 1938–39, the latest year for which figures are available, the comparable figure was £7 18s. 8d.

Pre-Service Training

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Education the nature of the pre-service training provided for boys and girls of 16 to 18 years of age who have now to register on reaching the age of 16 for such training?

Mr. Butler: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of Circulars 1577 and 1585, together with other memoranda issued by the Board, which will, I think, give him the information he desires.

Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many girls and boys between 16 and 18 have availed themselves of some form of pre-service training?

Mr. Butler: I cannot without notice.

Organised Youth Movement

Sir W. Davison: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will inform the House as to the numbers of boys and girls in the London area and in the country as a whole between the ages of 14 and 16 years; and what percentage of these have joined any form of organised youth movement?

Mr. Butler: I am unable to give up-to-date population figures, but I estimate that the total number of boys and girls in the age group 14–16 in England and Wales may be of the order of 1,100,000 of whom 80,000 to 90,000 may be referable to London. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that no figures are available.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a report, I think in September last, of the L.C.C. said that only


17 per cent. of the girls and boys interviewed had joined any youth movement? Is that figure approximately correct, and, if so, is it not very unsatisfactory?

Mr. Butler: I remember that there was a certain amount of discussion at the time about those figures. The position was not so clear as the hon. Member makes out. I shall be glad to give him exact information for him to judge if he will let me send it to him.

Teachers (Supply)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education what plans he is making to ensure that an adequate supply of teachers will be forthcoming for the next three years?

Mr. Butler: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am taking such steps as circumstances allow to ensure adequate staffing of the schools from year to year. The circumstances of the time do not, however, admit of my making a three-year plan.

Mr. Lindsay: I was not thinking so much of a three-year plan but of whether my right hon. Friend has not evidence that classes are now getting larger and absenteeism is growing among school children, and that the accumulating shortage of teachers is partly responsible for this state of affairs?

Mr. Butler: Over the country as a whole we are maintaining a remarkable average of pupils to teachers. In certain areas the difficulties to which my hon. Friend draws attention do exist.

Demobilised Personnel (Education and Training)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his Department is represented, and by whom, in the body which is set up to consider the further education and training of demobilised men and women?

Mr. Butler: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the Interdepartmental Committee of which Lord Hankey is Chairman. The Board is represented by the Deputy Secretary.

Mr. Lindsay: Could not my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Labour jointly to issue the recent memorandum as a White Paper, and would he see that there

is somebody representing the Board with education experience on the body which takes executive action inside the Appointments Department, so that potential teachers can be found from those now being demobilised?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend. As to the suggestion made with regard to the executive action by the Board I think there has been a tendency to under-rate the part which the Board is playing in this matter and the interest which I intend the Board shall take in the administration of this scheme.

Young Persons (Hours of Work)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the material available, as a result of the registration of young persons, has been collated by his Department; what light it throws on excessive hours of work; what consequent action is being reflected in policy; and when he is proposing to publish a report?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, a White Paper is being prepared, and I hope that my hon. Friend will await its publication. He should then obtain the information which he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax Evasions, Sheffield

Mr. McGhee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions have taken place for Income Tax evasions, involving amounts of £50,000 or more, in the Sheffield district during the last 10 years?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): None, Sir.

Mr. McGhee: How many cases of this nature have been settled without prosecution?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member had better put that Question down.

Wage-Earners (Income Tax)

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in many branches of industry girl piece-workers receive no wages during sickness and that when they recover and return they find accumulated Income Tax


charges awaiting them so that they have not enough to live on for the time being; and whether he will investigate such tax enforcement with a view to mitigating its severity?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The regulations governing the deduction of tax from wages provide, with a view to avoiding hardship, that the wages for any week shall not be reduced by deduction of tax below certain specified amounts, the amount in the case of a single person being £2. With regard to the recovery of arrears of tax, the general rule in the case of manual wage-earners is that any tax which cannot be deducted in a given week, owing to the absence of the employee through sickness or for any other reason, is carried forward and deducted in the last fortnight of the deduction period. There may, however, be some advantage from the employee's point of view in recalculating the weekly deduction when the employee returns to work, as the deductions of the accumulated tax is thus spread over a longer period. No objection is taken to the adoption of this alternative method where the employees concerned desire it.

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what experts, other than the Trades Union Council and the British Employers' Confederation, he has consulted in his efforts to find a satisfactory system of levying Income Tax on the current wages of industrial workers; and whether he can state their views?

Sir K. Wood: While, as indicated in the Budget Debates, I look to the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation as the principal consultative bodies in considering any changes that may be proposed, the Board of Inland Revenue, who are now actively engaged in considering the question, will gladly consider representations or suggestions from any quarter in regard to the arrangements for deduction of tax. Various suggestions for a current earnings basis have been made from time to time, but I do not consider that any useful purpose would at present be served by entering into any exposition of them. Certain

aspects of the matter are discussed in the White Paper issued last year.

Mr. Hammersley: Is the Chancellor keeping in close touch with America and Canada in connection with pay-as-you-go arrangements?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Member will remember the controversy that has arisen there.

Sir W. Davison: Has the Chancellor made inquiries among the working people themselves, who, like most people, appear to say that they would much prefer to have the deduction made from their pay and then recover what remains afterwards as a bonus? It seems to me to be a universal desire.

Mr. De la Bère: If they want it, why should they not have it?

Sir W. Davison: What is there against it?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member will see a full statement on the matter in the White Paper.

War Damage Payments

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extent to which the War Damage Commission has in its payments overdrawn the amount provided by the public in premiums and contributions?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave on 22nd April to the hon. Members for South-West St. Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson) and Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid out in war damage payments up to 31st December, 1942, or other convenient date?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 15th April last; as regards payments by the War Damage Commission, he will doubtless remember that the Chairman announced on 5th April that they had reached the sum of approximately £100,000,000.

Blind Persons' Pensions (Wives, War Work)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will


take action to remove the hardship caused to blind persons who lose their pensions if their wives, responding to the call for more female labour in factories of national importance, go out to work leaving their husbands unattended?

Sir K. Wood: The conditions under which these pensions are.awarded are laid down by Statute. Entitlement to pension depends upon the amount of the claimant's yearly means, and the Act provides that, in calculating the means of a person who is one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall be taken to be half the joint means of the couple.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the Chancellor not agree that this does constitute in fact a particularly grave hardship, and will consider the possibility of making some alteration?

Sir K. Wood: The matter was very carefully considered when the Act was passed.

External Loans

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount in borrowing, up to 31st December, 1942, or near date, from each of the countries who are making common cause with us and whom we are defending, together with interest rates attached to such borrowing?

Sir K. Wood: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the external loans contracted by His Majesty's Government in the course of the war as at 31st December, 1942. This figure must be distinguished from the much greater figure of the external liabilities of the country at large, which mostly takes the form of deposits of sterling or sterling securities held by overseas countries.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Chancellor give the House some indication what these rates are? Would it be correct to say there are no interest rates above 3 per cent.?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member is asking an entirely different Question.

Mr. Stokes: No, it is part of the Question.

Following is the list:

The following table shows amounts borrowed by His Majesty's Government and outstanding at 31st December, 1942:

Country.
Rate of Interest.
Amount.


Per cent.
£000


Canadian Government
Free
157,303


U.S.A.: Reconstruction
3
90,819


Finance Corporation.




Belgian Government
Free
25,200


Indian Government
2¼
30,054


East African Governments
2½ &amp; Free
5,650


Ceylon Government
3, 2½, &amp; Free
4,324


Federated Malay States Government.
Free
2,038


Trinidad Government
3, 2 &amp; Free
2,016


Newfoundland Government.
Free
1,528


Miscellaneous Loans from Colonies, etc. (under £1 million).

4,759




323,691

HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF CANTEEN

Mr. Denville: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what improvements he proposes to make in the House of Commons Canteen?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The Kitchen Committee have not recently considered any proposal for making further improvements in the House of Commons Staff Canteen, which we understand is giving every satisfaction to those using it.

Mr. Denville: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a common feeling that they are not supplied efficiently? Is he further aware that the servants of the House, the soldiers, the messengers, and the clerks are not able to obtain a meal at a reasonable price, and will he consider whether it is possible to instal something on the lines of a British Restaurant here for the workers?

Mr. Smith: I can assure the hon. Member we have not had any complaint or proposal. If a proposal is put before us, we shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the hon. Member whether he himself has taken the opportunity of lunching in that canteen recently, because I can assure him that, if he will consult some of the staff


who are in this Chamber at the moment, he will find that there is considerable dissatisfaction.

Mr. Smith: There are five canteens in the Palace of Westminster under licence by the Ministry of Food, in addition to certain mess rooms.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will my hon. Friend accept the, assurance that at some of these staff canteens very excellent meals are provided at a very moderate price?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Soft Fruit Prices

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement in connection with the fixation of soft-fruit prices?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Yes, Sir, An Order prescribing maximum prices for soft fruits will, it is expected, be made this week and will operate as from Monday next, 10th May. A statement is being issued to-day as to the maximum growers' prices and maximum wholesale and retail prices which will be prescribed in the Order. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the needs of the small producers, in view of the difficulties they found last year?

Mr. Mabane: Their needs have been particularly borne in mind.

Aged People (Rations)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that numerous resolutions arc being passed by local authorities, food committees, old age pensioners' associations and other bodies requesting price concessions and increased supplies to old age pensioners in respect of milk, tea, sugar and tobacco; and whether the Government is prepared to give further consideration to any of these requests?

Mr. Mabane: A number of resolutions have been sent to my Department urging that some classes of consumers, including old age pensioners, should be allowed increased rations. I would refer my

hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) on f4th April, to which I have nothing to add. As regards price concessions, no representations have been received except in regard to the National Milk Scheme, but as has been explained on several occasions my Noble Friend feels bound to restrict the benefit of the National Milk Scheme to the mothers and young children.

IRON ORE, NORTHERN IRELAND

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the pressing need for iron required for war purposes, he will order a fresh survey to be taken of the Dromara and Dechomet districts of County Down, where iron-ore is available to meet many of our war needs?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Sandys): The iron-ore deposits in these districts were examined by experts two years ago. The results of this examination were given to my hon. Friend in reply to a Question on 16th October, 1941. I do not feel that any fresh information would be obtained by holding a further investigation.

Dr. Little: In view of the most unsatisfactory answer and the fact that I have visited the Dromara mines and have formed my own opinion, I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that what is required to make the Dromara mines a paying proposition and useful in the war effort is the installation of a thorough pumping system, and that electricity is there awaiting it? Will he do that, as it is a shame and a crime that this state of affairs should exist?

Mr. Sandys: What is needed is a higher grade ore in the ground. These deposits have been examined by experts, and the bulk of the deposits have been found to contain a high measure of impurities and not to be suitable for steel making. We have plenty of low grade ore all over the country.

Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the percentage of iron in this ore, or give any indication of it?

Mr. Sandys: I could not do so without notice.

MINE ACCIDENTS

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in the mining industry during this year in each district and the comparative figures for 1942 and 1938?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

ACCIDENTS AT MINES UNDER THE COAL MINES ACT


(Excluding the Stratified Ironstone Mines in Cleveland, Lincolnshire and Northampton).


DISTRICT
1938.
1942


No. of Persons killed.
No. of Persons seriously injured.*
No. of Persons disabled for more than 3 days.
No. of Persons killed.
No. of Persons seriously injured.*
No. of Persons disabled for more than 3 days.


Northumberland
…
44
178
7,348
31
110
Not yet available.


Durham
…
88
418
18,834
122
331


South Yorkshire
…
99
304
18,378
114
319


West Yorkshire
…
39
135
6,552
43
167


Lancashire and Cheshire
…
55
200
8,931
60
165


North Wales
…
6
48
1,500
6
32


North Derbyshire
…
121
261
7,480
35
221


Nottinghamshire
…
25
139
8,254
41
166


South Derbyshire
…
1
23
484
7
27


Leicestershire
…
8
40
1,374
13
41


Cannock Chase
…
13
84
2,579
18
73


North Staffordshire
…
27
142
3,316
76
136


South Staffordshire and Worcestershire
…
9
17
727
9
14


Shropshire
…
4
12
440
2
13


Warwickshire
…
8
76
3,271
11
54


Cumberland
…
10
21
1,375
7
19


Forest of Dean
…
4
21
571
5
19


Bristol
…
—
—
43
1
—


Somerset
…
1
9
434
5
6


Kent
…
5
16
1,521
1
16


South Wales and Monmouth-shire
…
154
578
25,564
149
543


Fife and Clackmannan
…
27
89
2,851
27
65


Lothians (Mid. &amp; East)
…
15
73
1,789
15
50


Lanarkshire, etc.
…
61
183
5,938
57
154


Ayrshire and Dumfries
…
27
68
1,754
14
45


Great Britain
…
851
3,135
131,308
869
2,786



* Injuries which, because of their nature or severity are, under the terms of Section 80 of the Coal Mines Act,1911 required to be reported to His Majesty's Divisional Inspectors at the time of their occurrence.

Mr. Foster: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there has been an increase in the number of accidents or a decrease in the period mentioned in the Question asked by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Smith: I have had two complete years got out—last year and 1938—and the figures are somewhat similar. If you take the figures for this year and compare them with the figures for the same period of last year, there is a decrease. If my hon. Friend has any particular period in mind, I shall be glad to get out the figures for him.

The statement as follows:

HOUSING, SCOTLAND (RE-CONDITIONING)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to recondition condemned houses in the urban districts of Scotland in order to relieve the urgent prevalent shortage of houses for the wage-earning classes?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the limited supplies of building labour and materials at present available can be used to the best advantage in the completion of the houses which local authorities have under construction and in the building of the 1,000 new houses to be provided under the new Scottish interim programme. In the special cases where it is urgently necessary to find accommodation for bombed-out families the Defence Regulations give local authorities power, with my right hon. Friend's consent, to license the temporary reoccupation of condemned houses made-reasonably fit for occupation.

Sir T. Moore: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, does he not realise from the Debate which took place last Tuesday that, despite all these pious aspirations, the houses do not exist and that the houses this House decided upon have to be provided? Will his right hon. Friend take steps to bring to the notice of the War Cabinet that Scotland demands these houses and the reconditioning that may be necessary?

Mr. Westwood: We are taking all the steps that are possible to deal with this problem at the present time.

FOOD SUPPLIES CONFERENCE

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement about the agenda and objectives of the forthcoming food conference at Hot Springs?

The Secretary ^f State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The agenda of the Conference, which has been published, is rather long, and I am therefore circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The primary object of the Conference is to give the United Nations an opportunity to exchange information and views on longer

term problems concerning the production and consumption of foodstuffs and other essential agricultural products. The Conference will devote particular attention to the production and imports of the various countries, with an eye to the general improvement of levels of consumption, and the extent to which productive resources can be made to match the needs of consumption. The Conference will no doubt also consider what international arrangements would be required to improve the efficiency of production and distribution, with due regard to the interests of both producers and consumers. Relief is not included within the scope of the Conference.

Mr. Boothby: In view of the enormous importance of this Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been given sufficiently wide powers by the Government and will be in a position to make considerable commitments on our behalf?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend can be assured that the War Cabinet have given very close attention to the agenda of this Conference, and my right hon. Friend has been given a very full brief of instructions and a very expert staff to help him.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of how long this will take?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, who is in the United States, will be present at this Conference?

Mr. Eden: He certainly will be available for consultation.

Mr. Maxton: At Hot Springs?

Mr. Shinwell: I presume that we are not in any way committed to the decisions that may be reached by this Conference and that this House would be consulted particularly as regards exports, production and the like?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend may be assured that the ordinary constitutional procedure will be very strictly observed.

The following is the Agenda

1. Consumption levels and requirements.

(a) Food.

(1) Character and extent of consumption deficiencies in each country.
(2) Causes and consequences of malnutrition.
(3) Measures for improving standards of consumption (education, etc.).
(4) Reasonable national and international goals for improved food consumption.

(b) Other essential agricultural products.

(1) Pre-war consumption levels in various countries as influenced by prosperity or depression and by buying power of the population.
(2) Reasonable national and international goals for improved consumption with sustained employment and expanded industrial activity.

2. Expansion of production and adaptation to consumption needs.

(a) Measures for direction of production toward commodities, the supply of which should be increased.
(b) Measures for shifting production out of commodities in chronic surplus.
(c) Measures for improving agricultural productivity and efficiency.
(d) Measures for development and conservation of agricultural resources.
(e) Opportunities for occupational adjustments in agricultural populations.

3. Facilitation and improvement of distribution.

(a) Relation of national and international economic policies to agricultural problems with special reference to the facilitation of the movement of agricultural products in commerce.

(1) Expansion of international trade.
(2) Broad policies for assuring increased production and consumption in general.

(b) Improvement of agricultural marketing, processing and distribution.
(c) Special measures for wider food distribution.

(1) Improvement of consumption of low income groups.
(2) International dispossession corn-modifies in over supply.

(d) Buffer stocks and commodities arrangements to assure equitable prices and adequate supplies.


4. Recommendations for continuing and carrying forward the work of the Conference.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the Business for the next series of Sitting Days?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business will be as follows:

First Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Bill. If there is time, further progress will be made with the War Damage Bill [Lords].
Second Sitting Day—Supply (6th Allotted Day): Committee. A Debate on the proposals for an International Clearing Union will take place on the Treasury Vote.

Third Sitting Day—Supply (7th Allotted Day): Committee. The Ministry of Food Vote will be considered.

Mr. Greenwood: Now that the British members of the Bermuda Conference are back, may the House be assured that the Government will give urgent consideration to their Report with a view to a Debate at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The Report, as a matter of fact, has already been considered by the Government, and some of the conclusions are being put into effect now. It is contemplated that we should have a Debate early in the series of Sittings after the next series. We cannot very well have it in the next series of Sittings, because it is necessary to agree what can be said and how much can be said without risk to the work which has been done, and that has to be agreed with the United States beforehand.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction there is with regard to the delay in bringing forward the Bill in connection with old age pensions, and will be give us some indication when the Bill will be brought forward?

Mr. Eden: I do not know about the dissatisfaction, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Bill will be available within the next few days.

Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government propose to give a day soon to discuss the Motion calling for a Select Committee on war pensions, which stands in my name and the names of 100 Members of all parties?

Mr. Eden: The Prime Minister did deal with that question in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend a short time ago, and, quite apart from the reason that my right hon. Friend then adduced, the Government feel doubtful whether this is the moment when, with advantage, such a Select Committee could be set up. However, if the House wants a discussion on this matter, it can be discussed through the normal channels, and it may be possible without taking another Government day to arrange for a Supply day for such a Debate.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When we discuss the Food Ministry Vote will it be possible to raise problems connected with the retail distribution of food?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, and, I understand, even the distribution of fish.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: In connection with the Debate on the Bermuda Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have a White Paper or a statement in ample time before the discussion takes place?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, what I contemplated was that a Government representative, one of the Ministers who has been to the Conference, should open the discussion and tell the House as much as can be told without prejudice to that part of the arrangements which must remain secret.

Mr. Silverman: Would it not be of great advantage if the House had an opportunity, before the Debate, of considering such information as the Government, in consultation with other Powers, are prepared to make known?

Mr. Eden: I think it will be more useful for the Minister to make his statement in the Debate. That is the usual procedure.

Sir Alfred Beit: Would it be possible on the second Sitting Day of our next series to discuss American currency plans as well as British?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. That is certainly intended.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the House is called upon to discuss the Government statement about the Bermuda Conference immediately after the Minister has made his statement, tile House will not be in a position to give the matter the careful consideration it ought to have?

Mr. Eden: I do not think the position is as difficult as the hon. Gentleman believes. The broad elements of the problem are well known to Members in all parts of the House. I hope my right hon. Friend, when he speaks, will deal with certain practical proposals the Government have in mind, and the House can then comment upon them. That is the normal procedure.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us want to co-operate with him with regard to the time of the House and support for the Government, but that if pensions are to be debated on a Supply day and if material concessions are not in the Government's mind, he will not, in fact, save any Parliamentary time because we shall feel compelled to ask again for a day for a Debate on a Select Committee?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that it not infrequently happens that hon. Members are not satisfied and ask for another day. All I would like to say at the moment is that I will consider the representations my hon. and gallant Friend has made and that if he will repeat his Question on the third day of our next series of Sittings, I may then be able to give him a considered reply.

Miss Rathbone: With regard to the Bermuda Conference, do we understand that the Debate will not take place on a Motion? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the discussion will be opened by one of the delegates to the Conference.

Mr. Eden: It is the intention that the discussion shall be as wide as possible.

Miss Rathbone: But will it be on a notice of Motion?

Mr. Eden: So far as I am aware, there is no notice of Motion in existence.

Mr. Stokes: Do the Government propose to make any statement shortly about


electoral reform, particularly with regard to by-elections in war-time? Recently the Prime Minister said that it was hoped the Home Secretary would be able to make such a statement before Easter.

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not in a position to make a statement now, but he hopes shortly to do so.

Mr. Gallacher: As regards the Old Age Pensions Bill, will the Government make certain that there is an increase in the flat rate?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience never to wish to anticipate any good thing that is coming.

Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a little further the suggestion made to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)? Is he aware of the deep feeling in the House on this matter and that many Members are anxious to have an opportunity of examining most carefully the proposals of the Government before the Debate?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that would be a good arrangement; it would probably mean further delay because documents to be laid would have to pass across the Atlantic and so on. I think the broad aspects of the problem are known, and I think it is much more satisfactory to pursue the normal practice, which is that when a Minister has returned from a conference he should tell the House about it.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the notice of Motion signed by 277 Members, who understood that a Debate would, take place on that Motion, will not now be debated? The Motion can, of course, be repeated, but we hoped that it would be in the mind of the Government.
[That, in view of the massacres and starvation of Jews and others in enemy and enemy-occupied countries, this House desires to assure His Majesty's Government of its fullest support for immediate measures, on the largest and mast generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security, for providing help and temporary asylum to persons in danger of massacre who are able to leave enemy and enemy-occupied countries.]

Mr. Eden: I was contemplating an arrangement to enable a wide discussion of the subject; I was not contemplating discussion of that Motion.

BILL PRESENTED

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to make provision in Scotland for the enrolment of assistant nurses for the sick, for the restriction of the use of the name or title of nurse, and for the regulation of agencies for the supply of nurses for the sick, and to amend the Nurses Registration (Scotland) Act, 1919"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Westwood and Mr. Allan Chapman; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they give leave to the Viscount Ridley, C.B.E., to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Production and Supply Inquiries (A) appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

Orders of the Day — HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th May].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 6.—(Distribution schemes.)

Mr. Hunter (Perth): I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, to leave out from "electricity," to "within," in line 4, and to insert "to ordinary consumers."
I would suggest that the Board should from time to time prepare schemes for the supply of electricity to ordinary consumers. It is a question of trying to ensure that ordinary consumers will not be prejudiced as against large consumers.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I think the Amendment does not alter the sense of the Clause, but it is better drafting, more direct and more easily understood, and we are prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 5, leave out "limits," and insert "areas."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Mr Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert, "and approve."

The Lord Advocate: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his brevity, but I have some difficulty in undertanding just what he wants. The position under the Bill is that the Secretary of State prescribes the


form in which these various documents are to be presented. He cannot, of course, approve of the documents at that stage, because it is his judicial duty to consider and approve of them after he has received objections. I do not really think the Amendment would improve the position, and I suggest that it is unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 18, leave out "it available for inspection," and insert, "copies available for inspection and sale."—[Commander Galbraith.]

In line 23, leave out, "twenty-one," and insert "forty."

In line 33, at the end, insert:
Provided that where any person who has lodged objection to the scheme requests that an inquiry shall be held the Secretary of State shall, unless he is of opinion that the objection is frivolous, cause an inquiry to be held before confirming the scheme,"—[The Lord Advocate.]
In line 36, leave out "may be inspected," and insert
are available for inspection and sale."—[Mr. Erskine Hill.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did not seek to move the Amendment which you, Major Milner, called earlier, because I discussed it during the Debate yesterday on Clauses 4 and 5, the short point being that in my view, and that of many who are experts in the matter, the present arrangement by which every such scheme has to he submitted to the Commissioners for approval is likely to cause delay, and possibly inconvenience and difficulty, for the Secretary of State. The alternative proposal which I submitted, and which I would still press if it were in Order, is the more sensible and workmanlike method, by which the Board is required, in consultation with the Electricity Commissioners, to prepare and present schemes to the Scottish Secretary. In that way I am advised that you would avoid disputes and disagreements which are almost certain to arise now and also avoid putting the right hon. Gentleman in the most invidious position of either having to wait for the Commissioners' approval or act as an arbiter. I have put that to the Scottish Office. The Lord Advocate does not re-

gard it as a good system. I put the Amendment down on the advice of some of the leading men in the industry and I still believe it to be sound. If the Government decline to accept it, they must take the responsibility.
I want to speak upon the Clause in general. What does it deal with? It is a simple matter of erecting lines to carry electricity to private consumers. Id is not a matter of great transmission lines carrying supplies from the generating stations to the Central Electricity Board. The Government have imposed upon the Board, as I contend they have done throughout, another cumbrous piece of obstruction. I see no need for this heavy weather system of an inquiry, and I am bound to ask the Government why they impose upon this Board a condition that they do not impose upon private undertakers. It is inconceivable to me that the Board should be required to do something which was not laid down in the East Anglian Electricity Act, 1927. That is only one of many that I have examined, each of which contains similar provisions. This private undertaking has not to make a public inquiry. There is a very simple instruction from the House. Section 23 says:
The company may at any time, and shall within a year, submit to the Commissioners proposals for the development of the supply of electricty for lighting and general domestic purposes.
To whom must they submit their proposals? To the public for an inquiry? Nothing of the kind. Only to certain local authorities.
The company shall, in submitting any proposals to the Commissioners under Subsection (1) of this Section, serve copies thereof on every local authority whose district, or any part of whose district, is situate in the area to which the proposals relate.
That is all. The company is required to submit a scheme to the Commissioners and copies of the scheme to the local authorities concerned in the area. When that has been done, when representations from the local authorities have been heard and when the Commissioners are satisfied, then, it says:
When the said scheme has been approved by the Commissioners with or without modification, it shall he the duty of the company to carry the same into effect,
If that was the considered instruction of the House of Commons for private companies—and, despite all the criticism


from the other side under which private companies lay, apparently it was thought sufficient—why impose upon this public company this burdensome, cumbersome and delaying procedure? I cannot understand it. It is another example of the excess of zeal on the part of the Scottish Office to load this wretched Board with instructions, delays, red tape and bureaucracy. On the same principle as that which underlies all my other objections, I object to this system and ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider it.

The Lord Advocate: I regret to say that I am not acquainted with the situation in East Anglia or with the terms of the Act which applies there, but the general Act which applies all over the country is much more elaborate than my hon. Friend's citation. Indeed, it is more and not less elaborate than the procedure in this Bill. We have simplified the general law here, and not expanded it. The general law under the 1919 Act is that a special order for distribution is made by the Electricity Commissioners, confirmed by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and then submitted to Parliament. There is a provision in that code for local inquiries, and in certain cases an inquiry is obligatory. There is certainly nothing more elaborate here than there is in the existing general code. I would say further, in justification of the seeming elaborateness of this Clause, that it raises questions of great public importance. It is obvious from a number of the speeches made yesterday that the question of distribution in some remote areas arouses great interest both inside and outside this Chamber, and it seems right therefore that when there is a proposal affecting some remote part of the country that the House of Commons should become aware of it, and should be entitled to make its comments.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is not right in that. This scheme will not come before the House of Commons. It is the construction scheme which comes to the House of Commons, but this relates only to a distribution scheme.

The Lord Advocate: It has to be inquired into and passed by the Secretary of State, who would very soon hear about it in the House of Commons if he did

anything wrong. The House of Commons, therefore, because of the Secretary of State being brought into the picture, has an indirect control which ought to be preserved. I submit that there should be opportunities, not only for members of the public, but for Members of Parliament, to make their views felt.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend quite appreciates the position. First, he seems to suggest that the case which I mentioned is exceptional. It is nothing of the kind. I can give him other cases, and I could find still more, if I took time to look them up in the Library.

Mr. Sloan: The hon. Member had plenty of time.

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of allowing me to finish what I have to say. I can give the example of the Cleveland and District Act, 1928, the East Anglia Act, 1927, Section 28, the Wessex Act, 1927, Section 21, and there are others. The Lord Advocate refers me to the Act of 1919. We have advanced since 1919. By 1927 the House of Commons had conceived a shorter, neater, quicker method of doing these things. My right hon. and learned Friend suggests that we ought to go back to the old cumbersome method of 20 years ago. Really, I cannot understand what I may call the Conservative view on these matters which my right hon. Friends represent.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is no wonder the hon. Member smiles.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did not interrupt hon. Members opposite yesterday. We listened with great patience to speeches, many of which we thought were miles beyond the point and quite unjustified, and one would hope that they would, at least, give us a chance of putting a point of substance directly attached to the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member divide the Committee on it?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend says that these schemes will be of considerable importance, and I do not deny that. Of course it will be of importance if a village is to get a supply of electricity. But those other Acts to which


I have referred dealt with much larger populations than are concerned here and with a greater body of public opinion, and apparently those concerned were perfectly satisfied that the method of informing the local authorities gave them all the notice they required. No suggestion has come to me from the Highlands that they want the cumbersome method proposed in the Bill. It has never been put to me that anybody is going to raise a great noise about this business of running a line along this street or that street in a town and I would beg of my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter in view of the precedents I have indicated.

The Lord Advocate: I will certainly undertake to have a look at those three Acts to which my hon. Friend has referred and which are new to me. Perhaps I am not to blame in that respect, because they are English and not Scottish Acts. If they suggest any new or better scheme to us we will look into it.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Acquisition of land.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "Act," and to insert "section."
This is really a drafting Amendment. The present reference in the Bill is to the Act as a whole, but the matters to which we wish to refer are confined to one Section of the Act. To save people the trouble of looking through the Act as a whole, we think it better to substitute the word "section." It will help those who will have to interpret the law.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out "have taken possession under," and to insert "are in possession in pursuance of."
This Amendment also is of a drafting character, but I wish to say something about it because there has been some misapprehension about the present form of the Sub-section. It is intended to make clear that the provisions of this Subsection are of a purely temporary character and operate only between the time when the Board takes possession and the time when the Board gets a proper

legal title. After that, the powers of the Board will be regulated by the title. In order to remove a misapprehension that the powers given her may have a permanent effect, I think it right to offer that explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bossom: I beg to move; in page 6, line 22, to leave out from "may," to the end of line 23.
The Sub-section, from which I am moving to omit the words from "may" to the end, reads as follows:
Land of which the Board have taken possession under this section may, notwithstanding any restriction imposed on the use thereof (whether by any Act or other instrument or otherwise), be used subject to the provisions of the scheme by the Board in such manner as they think expedient for the purpose of carrying out the scheme.
These powers could hardly be more sweeping and might cause serious injury. The Sub-section itself directly calls attention to possible serious injury to amenities. Otherwise it would not have been included. I think the Secretary of State must have felt that when he had these words put in. I fully sympathise with the idea of electrical development in this part of Scotland. It is essential that electricity should be developed as much as possible, but we have to realise that it will not end there. This development will mean the construction of reservoirs, the laying of hydraulic mains, the building of generating stations, pylons and cables, transformer stations and all sorts of other buildings, as well as factories in the future and a whole lot of housing. Although I would enthusiastically support the development of electricity in this part of Scotland, we must be sure that it will not ruin the amenities there. Men in their wisdom in the past have made restrictions, and it is our desire to preserve the natural beauty of this part of the country as far as possible. It can easily become one of the great playgrounds of the country, and now that aircraft travel at 300 miles an hour people will be able to get there in two hours from any part of the island.

Mr. Kirkwood: Only the rich can get there.

Mr. Bossom: Everybody can get there. We are in danger of not only destroying


it for ourselves out of jeopardising it for future generations. We should, therefore, take every precaution and be most careful in looking after it. Everybody who knows this district and the development of electrical work knows that it is possible to do the electrical work satisfactorily and at the same time, if proper care is exercised, to preserve a large part of the natural beauty. The Minister has endeavoured to meet us as far as he can, and no one would be worried if we could have the present Minister as the permanent Secretary of State, but when he disappears somebody else will come along, and if these words are still in the Bill, the new Minister will be able to override every condition that has been made to preserve the beauty and the amenities of the Highlands.

Mr. Price: I hope I shall be forgiven as a mere South Briton for interfering in a purely Scottish Measure, but in view of the fact that this Amendment concerns the preservation of the amenities of the Highlands, which are of national, indeed, I might say, an international, concern, there is a justification for my intervention. The Amendment will do something towards making it easier to preserve amenities. In the next Clause provision is made for giving to an amenity committee and a fishery committee power to appeal to the Secretary of State for the prevention of any interference with the amenities of the Highlands, but this Clause is drafted in such a way as largely to undo Clause 9. Therefore, the Amendment does something to bring Clause 8 into line with Clause 9. It is a sound principle that in a Measure of this kind, which is planning the electrical and industrial development of the Highlands, we should, before we actually make the plans, decide where we should place the industrial development and where the neutralised areas should be where no industrial development should take place. As one who has frequently been to the Highlands, I have always taken notice of the social and economic conditions of the people, and I have often been horrified at the extreme poverty of large areas of that beautiful country. Therefore, it is the duty of those of us who are not living there to do what we can to assist the people. At the same time, it is possible, side by side with industrial

development, to preserve the natural amenities.
I had occasion last August to go on behalf of the Forestry Commission to see the National Forest Park at Ardgarten and to see how far the existing amenities for giving the public access to and enjoyment of the Highlands were being used. In order that I may impress my hon. Friends behind me with the fact that it is not only the people who are engaged in shooting and salmon fishing who are able to use the Highlands. I would point out that all along the side of Loch Long and Loch Eck in the National Forest Park of Ardgarten, and near the great Benmore arboretum, there are a number of little hostels scattered about, all of which were being used in very large numbers by the workers from the Clydeside who go there from Saturday afternoon until Monday to enjoy themselves. There are already arrangements, in which the Forestry Commission has played a part, for providing facilities for camping and living in hostels in those places. There should be no passage in this Bill which might mean that the Board could come along and completely ignore all the arrangements which have been made or are in process of being made for allowing these facilities. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State has got this matter as much in mind and that it is as dear to his heart as it is to most of us, but he may not always be in office, and we must make the Bill watertight. It may be that there are safeguards in other Clauses, but this Amendment would strengthen the Bill.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise with considerable temerity as a mere Southerner to add a few words on a Scottish Bill. I reinforce with all the sincerity I can command what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom). There are, perhaps, vested interests behind this Amendment, but they are really the vested interests of the people who have an interest, whether English or Scottish or from other parts of the world, in the beauties of Scotland. We find these words objectionable and, in fact, indefensible, because they are extraordinarily sweeping and allow the Board to disregard work which has been done for the preservation of amenities for the public owners not only by private owners but by such bodies as the National


Trust or even, according to the phraseology of the Clause, by Parliament. We feel that this is too wide a power to give to the Board without the overriding responsibility of the Secretary of State and of his responsibility to this House. The Amendment should be read in conjunction with the next Amendment, which will make the position clear, namely, in line 31, at the end, to add:
but nothing in this Act shall empower the Board to take possession of land already designated in perpetuity for the enjoyment of the public, nor authorise the Board to prevent access to land to which the public have a right of access under the law of Scotland unless the exercise of such rights would be a danger to public safety.
It is not moved in any restrictive or crippling spirit, but is moved with the idea of clarifying the Bill and tidying it up. We seek to fix the responsibility upon somebody who will have an overriding responsibility beyond the Board.
I have no doubt we shall be told that some other over-riding authority, such as a Minister of Town and Country Planning for Scotland, will later on be set up with power over the Board. I contend, however, that that will be legislation by implied reference to an unsubstantial body not instituted and in fact uncreated at present. I notice with great personal regret that the Secretary of State has apparently broken his arm, and I express my sympathy with him in that misfortune, and the sympathy, I am sure, of the Committee, but he will forgive me if I remind him that he might have broken his neck. In that case, as the Lord Advocate pointed out yesterday, we might have had a new Secretary of State, with a totally different point of view. Therefore, it is important to fix the responsibility not upon the Board but upon the Secretary of State, and through him upon this House. The Clause should be framed as though it were the last word that was ever going to be said upon the subject. It should not be left, as it were, in the air for some other theoretical body to over-ride the Board.

Sir Francis Fremantle (St. Albans): We are now dealing with a subject which concerns general legislation, and that is the real reason why so many of us are concerned with the particular question being raised here. I am strongly in favour of the general purpose of this Bill, but one has to consider points which, though they may seem rather irrelevant, may have to

be looked after by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members, especially those on the other side, who talk so much about private interests and vested interests—I do not want to defend selfish interests—ought to be reminded that there is no such thing as nature in the amenities that we are considering. The countryside which we know is the result of developments over the last 10 centuries. In that period the land has been developed, trees have been imported into the country and cultivated, and various things have been done which have made the forests, the fields and the pastures what they are, made the beauties of this country. Much has been done under various Acts of Parliament which while containing restrictions have at the same time conferred privileges which have always been spoken of by those opposite as though they were selfish privileges. They are not. They are the enshrinement of the principles which have produced all these amenities, and I fear lest these principles should now be swept away by the words contained in this Clause which the Amendment proposes to deal with.

Mr. Gallacher: Does the hon. Member want principles or people?

Sir F. Fremantle: I want the principles on which the future of the people depends, together with their amenities, their comforts and their whole conditions. Those are principles laid down by Parliament, and they can be amended by Parliament at any time, but to do away with them in this sweeping way seems to be very dangerous, and therefore I wish to support the Amendment.

The Secretary. of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I hope that my hon. Friends from the South of the Border will not persist in these two Amendments. As they know, and as I am sure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would be the first to acknowledge, the Government have in. this Measure gone to greater lengths in endeavouring to preserve the amenity side of the Highlands of Scotland than in any Act of Parliament hitherto. This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the succeeding one. There it is proposed that any restrictive covenant on land shall be waived only with the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It says the Board are not to have any right


to acquire land or to use land with any restrictive covenant on it except with the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland. But that is in the Bill now. As the Bill stands, the Board cannot proceed with any constructional scheme, cannot stick a spade into the soil, without the consent of the Secretary of State, and, indeed, without the consent, implied at any rate, of both Houses of Parliament. Some hon. Members say that the position might be all right provided that the Secretary of State for Scotland had certain points of view. That is precisely why we have persisted in saying that every constructional scheme shall come to this House, so that it shall not depend on the whim of a Secretary of State for Scotland, but that in the last analysis this House shall be supreme and shall have the right of veto should there be any wanton or unnecessary interference with a beauty spot.
I beg of the hon. Member and his friends to believe me when I say that this was one determination of the Government—that though we all want electrical development, and want to see the amenities of civilisation provided for the people of the North of Scotland, we do not desire to give powers to any Board to interfere wantonly and unnecessarily with one of our great heritages, the beauty and the glory of the North of Scotland. I ask hon. Members to believe me when I say that the Bill as it stands ensures that Parliament will have the right to veto any constructional scheme which should wantonly or foolishly invade any beauty spot. I do not know that such a situation will ever arise, but there might be some instances in which a restrictive covenant had been placed upon a parcel of land which would interfere with the provision of the amenities of civilisation for large tracts of territory. The hon. Member and his friends admit that that might happen in exceptional cases, and in those cases they say they would trust the Secretary of State for Scotland. I say "No, do not trust any Secretary of State for Scotland, but trust to the veto of Parliament." I beg hon. Members not to press their Amendment.

Mr. Bossom: On the assurance of the Secretary of State that this matter will be brought to him and to this House before

anything of this sort takes place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bossom: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, at the end, to add:
but nothing in this Act shall empower the Board to take possession of land already designated in perpetuity for the enjoyment of the public, nor authorise the Board to prevent access to land to which the public have a right of access under the law of Scotland unless the exercise of such rights would be a danger to public safety.
The rights of access to property in Scotland are very much appreciated by all who go there, and we feel strongly that under this Bill those rights should not be taken away unless it be necessary for the safety of the public. It was for that reason that the Amendment was put down.

Mr. Johnston: The arguments which I put forward a moment ago apply with equal relevance to this Amendment. So long as both Houses of Parliament must have laid before them any constructional scheme Parliament will have the right of veto.

Mr. Bossom: On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amenity Committee and Fisheries Committee.)

Captain W. T. Shaw: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, to leave out from the first "of," to "and," and to insert:
not less than five persons and including, in the case of the Fisheries Committee, two or more persons appointed after consultation with organisations representative of the owners and occupiers of fishings in the North of Scotland District.
It is satisfactory to see in the Bill that the Board is to be recommended to avoid as far as possible interfering with fisheries in any way, but those interested in fishing in the North of Scotland feel that further protection, if possible, should be provided for their industry. They feel that the best way to achieve that is by strengthening the Fisheries Committee. The Bill makes very indefinite reference to this Committee. Things are left almost entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Our Amendment seeks to ensure


that the Committee shall be composed of not less than five members, two of them chosen after consultation with the representatives of the fishing industry in the North of Scotland. That is a very reasonable suggestion, and I hope it will commend itself to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has a great deal of discretionary power under the Bill, and I daresay he will use it discreetly, but he may not always occupy that position and the fishing industry feel they would like a further safeguard inserted in the Bill, so that whoever may be Secretary of State they can he sure that there shall be a strong and efficient Committee composed of people who understand, particularly, the salmon fishing industry. We do not want Civil servants but men who understand the industry. I feel certain that in the first instance these appointments will be of a satisfactory nature, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion that the Committee should consist of five or more members. The salmon fishing industry is a very important one, important from a food-producing point of view, important as regards the amount of labour it employs and also important as embracing valuable rate-producing properties. It is one of the natural assets of Scotland which the Secretary of State would, I am sure, wish to preserve. I trust, therefore, he will accept the Amendment.

Major Kimball: In spite of the warning issued yesterday by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I venture to support this Amendment. I am taking part in the discussion not as a Member for an English constituency but as a resident in Sutherland, where I have a home.

Mr. Buchanan: Why should the hon. and gallant Member apologise for speaking as a Member for an English division?

Major Kimball: I have a particular interest in one of the counties largely affected by this Bill, and I was explaining why I ventured to support the Amendment. In peace-time the salmon and sea-trout fishing industry is a very important one. It may be said that the net fisheries employ over 2,000 people directly, and indirectly quite a number more in the production of nets, boats and

so on. The rod-fishing industry employs at least as many. Further, salmon and sea-trout fishing is a very popular sport among many thousands.
Lastly, I think this sport probably brings to the Highlands a greater number of visitors than any other. The catering for those visitors, the provision of hotel accommodation and of taxis to take visitors to the fishing, as well as the provision of boats and ghillies, provide in sum total a great deal of seasonal employment. It is fair to say that this industry, although small, is important, and its interests and preservation are very important. I hope that the Secretary of State will observe the lesson to be learned from the Shannon scheme in the South of Ireland. There a large hydro-electric scheme was completed, and, with the completion of the scheme, the fishing industry was finished. I visited the Shannon shortly before the war. In the villages below the darn, men who had been previously employed in the fishing industry were out of work, not only those who were the actual fishermen but those who made the nets or the boats, and even those who were employed in making wooden boxes in which the fish were shipped away.
I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that the suggestion of the membership of the Fisheries Committee being required to have at least two representatives of those interests who know something about the industry is intended to prevent exactly what happened under the Shannon scheme. If the Fisheries Committee giving advice to the Secretary of State is to be of any real value, it must, I suggest, have among its members individuals who really know from firsthand experience something about the conditions. What is really vital is the provision of some form of fish ladder or pass to enable the fish to go up to the spawning grounds, and the provision of some safety device for the young fish in their second year when as smolts they are returning to the sea. Unless they are safeguarded, what happens is that they are swept into the turbines of the hydroelectric scheme and are killed in their thousands. I suggest it would be advisable that members of the Fisheries Committee should have practical experience, both from the point of view of safeguarding access to the spawning grounds and access back to the sea. There is one last


reason. Very often in a hydro-electric scheme for some reason the natural course of the stream changes, and then the fish ladder, which previously was perfectly serviceable, is found to be of no use at all. The Fisheries Committee should have the power and the knowledge to be able to recommend that suitable alterations should be made. For all those reasons I suggest that there should be persons with knowledge and experience of the fishery industry upon the Fisheries Committee.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment has indeed no cause to apologise for his interest in this matter. He comes from Sutherland and has very considerable personal knowledge of these matters. We would be delighted to take advice from knowledgeable persons, and certainly no Fisheries Committee will be set up without a most careful examination of the capacity of the personnel. If a Secretary of State ever sets up a Committee which is not of great capacity and knowledge, he would rightly be liable to be shot at in this House. Both hon. and gallant Gentlemen are aware that I had a long and very friendly interview with representatives of the fishing industry in the North of Scotland, and I thought I had convinced them that it was inadvisable to specify the precise number or qualifications of the personnel of the Fisheries Committee. It might be that there would be persons from Dumfriesshire or Ayrshire who had a considerable knowledge of hydro-electric schemes and fisheries. They would be highly desirable members of this Committee and highly acceptable to the interests concerned. I suggested it would be better to leave the thing as it is rather than to tie our hands in advance in such a way as to limit us to choosing a less competent and efficient body than we otherwise would. I entirely agree as to the importance of this industry. I think I am right in saying that there are about 2,000 employees depending upon this industry for their livelihood and that the local authorities are considerably intererested in it. I hope to see the day when the great angling industry will be much more widely open to the general public than it has been in the past.

Mr. Kirkwood: Up to the present it is the preserve of the rich.

Mr. Johnston: Not entirely. I will put it that at any rate we hope it will be much more widely open. We can see great changes in that direction. At any rate, we are convinced of the importance of the industry and the absolute necessity to preserve it. Unfortunately there might be occasions when in the national interest it would be necessary to act in some other way, but we must see that most adequate compensation and a square deal are given to the employees as well as to the employers in the industry. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentlemen to accept our assurances that we shall do everything we can to preserve this industry, and I ask them not to tie our hands in the way that the Amendment proposes.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was entitled to apologise, not for speaking, but for speaking in such an unworthy cause. Nobody need have the slightest fear that the wealthy owners of the fisheries will not be consulted. I had the experience when I was a lad which all the lads of our class had had. We went out to do a bit of fishing with a tin and a string, and the employees who are being talked about just now chased us off the land. I remember how we ran bare foot along the road with all our clothes under our arms, with those employees coming after us for all they were worth. These people will be consulted, and there will be too many of them on the Committee.

Mr. Johnston: We are resisting the Amendment because it may be highly desirable that no interested parties should be on the Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: I know it is being resisted, but they will be consulted, and the representatives on the Committee will be too many. They will be the representatives of notorious robbers and stealers of land. Let the Secretary of State for Scotland distribute a copy of his book to show how these people got their land and got their fishing rights, by murder, robbery, and corruption.

Major McCallum: Does not the hon. Member realise that the workers of Glasgow come out in their thousands to fish in the waters of Argyllshire, both seawater and freshwater fishing?

Mr. Gallacher: I have had many holidays in the Highlands, and I have seen an occasional Glasgow worker coming


along with a rod to do a bit of fishing. What the hon. and gallant Member has just said reminds me of what a fellow said OD one occasion when he and I had been speaking at a meeting. He said there had been thousands at the meeting. A sceptical lad asked, "Thousands?" "Well, hundreds." The sceptical lad then asked, "Hundreds?" "Well," was the final estimate "there were 50 or 60 there, anyway." That is something like the sort of exaggeration used by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll. It is not true that thousands of Glasgow workers go out to the rivers in Argyllshire for fishing.

Major McCallum: If the hon. Member will accept my invitation and come to stay with me—if we live till peace-time—he will see on the road going past my house thousands of people from Glasgow on bicycles, each one with a fishing rod tied to the bars of his bicycle.

Mr. Gallacher: I will go with the hon. and gallant Member at any time on a holiday in Argyllshire, and I will show him more boys fishing with a string than workers from Glasgow. It is almost incredible that hon. Members should try to put such a suggestion in the form of an Act of Parliament so that the owners should be allowed to put their representatives on to such a Committee.

Mr. Buchanan: I welcome English Members taking an interest in Scottish affairs. One of the curses of Scottish Debates is that we come here as a little group rather out of touch with the wider world outside. I often wish we could discuss Scottish housing in a way that would appeal to the people not only in this country but all over the world and let them know how we live in Scotland. We should get some interest in it then. This fishing industry is not merely angling but is in the region of being a commercial business. One company promoted the last Bill on the subject that this House rejected. They had a very heavy financial interest in the salmon fishing. When they took over the land they had to buy the salmon rights as well. The result was, being a first-class business concern, whatever else they might be, they ran the salmon fishing with first-class business ability. On the evidence we heard I was impressed by their manager

and his knowledge of the salmon fishing trade.
Regarding this Amendment, I sympathise with the view of the Secretary of State. It is not uncommon in this House, and from our side, to insist that the Trades Union Congress or someone else should be consulted on various matters. I must confess that that kind of thing never quite appeals to me. I think the Secretary of State has taken the right line. I say to him that some of us still believe in politics. I think this House is coming to believe less and less in politics, the way we compliment each other now. That is all boloney and nonsense. I do not sympathise with the view of those who say that the Secretary of State for Scotland is all right but that the next one may be all wrong. That is all nonsense. When the next fellow comes along they will say, "If you had been there, you would have done it much better." I do not take that view about the next Secretary of State at all. I hope that whoever occupies the post, whether the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, will see to it that somebody with knowledge will be obtained, that they will be men who know something about it. When I heard the evidence I was certainly impressed with the need for knowledge on this particular subject. It is quite true to say that if a hydro-electric scheme has gone through without that knowledge being available, it means an end of salmon fishing. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will take the view that knowledge of the salmon industry, not a knowledge of landlordism or anything else of that kind, but a real business knowledge of its everyday life, is required in whoever is chosen. I do not want the Secretary of State to narrow it down to this little group or that. If the Secretary of State is narrowed by an Act of Parliament like that, very frequently his choice may be limited. I say he should choose the best man, but it frequently happens that the best man for the job may be in conflict with interests. In other words, if it is said that certain people have to be consulted, frequently those interests may not allow the best man to get on because he has quarrelled with those interests, just because he is the best man.

Major Kimball: That argument would appear to be based on the assumption that we were asking that there should he no other representation on the Committee.


What the Amendment seeks is to have two representatives, so that the Committee shall have the benefit of people with first-class knowledge.

Mr. Buchanan: Often the best men succeed in quarrelling with people, because they are the best men, and it may be that for reasons other than that he is the best man interests may say that they do not want him. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be perfectly free to make his choice. I trust that whoever is in command of this Measure will pay respect to a knowledge of the industry and see that whoever is appointed should have first-class knowledge of the industry and should be able to use his capacity in guiding the Committee's decisions on salmon fishing in a proper direction.

Captain Shaw: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hannah: I beg to move, in page 6, line 45, at the end, to insert:
(3) The Board before submitting any scheme (whether the development scheme or a constructional scheme or a distribution scheme) to the Electricity Commissioners for approval shall send copies of the draft scheme to the Amenity Committee and the Fisheries Committee and shall take into consideration all recommendations made by either of those Committees on the draft scheme within one month from the receipt thereof by the Committees.
This is intended merely as a strengthening Clause to make it perfectly certain that before any scheme is prepared the Amenity Committee and the Fisheries Committee shall be consulted. Personally, I confess to have very much snore interest in the Amenity Committee than in the Fisheries Committee. A great many years ago all the fish in Scotland decided to boycott any worm or fly with which I had anything whatever to do, and I accordingly accepted the decision and have never fished or wanted to fish for a great many years. But in the amenities of Scotland I am very deeply interested, and this Amendment is for the purpose of making it perfectly certain that the Amenity Committee and the Fisheries Committee shall not merely be consulted but shall be given information of what is proposed before any scheme is actually drafted so as to make it more certain that their advice will be thoroughly con-

sidered and taken. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate the point.

Mr. Johnston: The purpose of the hon. Gentleman in moving his Amendment is, I take it, to ensure that before any development scheme is confirmed or before any constructional scheme is begun to be operated the appropriate Amenity and Fisheries Committees will be consulted. That is, in effect, what he wants. If he will be good enough to look at the Amendment on the Order Paper following his own he will see that we very largely follow his views in that regard. We propose to move the next Amendment, which will make the Sub-section read:
The Board shall, before and during the preparation of a constructional scheme, and may at any other time, consult the Amenity Committee and the Fisheries Committee …

Mr. Hannah: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance and to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, which I certainly should not move in competition with a Government Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 1, leave out "in preparing," and insert "before and during the preparation of."—(Mr. Johnston.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Major McCallum: Before we leave this Clause I should, if I might, say just one word to ask my right hon. Friend for some slight assurance, that is, that in recent construction carried out by another hydro-electric scheme the Amenity Committee does not seem to have had the necessary power to prevent a certain, what might be called, blot on the countryside which might have been prevented. I refer to the pylons which have been erected over Rannoch Moor from Loch Rannoch to Bridge of Orchy. From Bridge of Orchy westwards wooden poles have been used, and we feel that a great deal of unsightly spoiling of the view might have beat avoided had similar poles been used the whole way across Rannoch Moor. In my part of the Highlands we feel that either the Amenity Committee was not consulted or was overridden. I hope that the Amenity Committee under this new Bill will be


sufficiently strong to prevent anything of that sort.

Mr. Jonhston: If the hon. and gallant Member wants an assurance that we intend to appoint the strongest possible Amenity Committee and to give every assurance to that Amenity Committee that every reasonable recommendation that they make will be strongly enforced and backed by the Scottish Office, I can cheerfully give him that assurance.

Major Kimball: Before we leave this Clause there are two points on which I should like a little guidance, either from the Secretary of State or from the Solicitor-General. The first is purely a drafting one. In my copy of the Bill, Sub-section (7) of this Clause reads:
Nothing in the provisions of Schedule 6 to the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868 shall apply …
Should not that be Schedule G? I shall be very grateful if that can be looked at.

The Lord Advocate: It should be "G".

Major Kimball: The other point is that under Sub-section (4) there is considerable obscurity, in my mind, on the precise meaning of the words in brackets from lines 15 to 18:
(Not being a recommendation involving the execution by the Board of any works authorised by a confirmed scheme otherwise than in the manner set forth in the scheme.)
I take it that those words show what action can be taken by the Secretary of State if the Fisheries Committee, for example, makes a recommendation, and the Board refuses to accept that recommendation. It seems to me that there are three cases in which one of these Committees, either the Fisheries Committee or an Amenity Committee, may be consulted under the terms of this Bill. They may be consulted in the first instance when the Board is preparing a constructional scheme, or, secondly, after the scheme has been made while the Secretary of State is considering it, and, thirdly, according to the words in the Clause, "at any other time." Suppose one of the Committees makes a recommendation under the third heading. These words might possibly prevent the Secretary of State from giving effect to that recommendation. If, for example, after a scheme had been completed and a dam built, it was found that that dam

absolutely obstructed the passage of any fish, the Fisheries Committee might make a recommendation that the dam should be removed. That would be a ridiculous situation and quite unreasonable, and these words in Sub-section (4) would in such a case very rightly allow the Secretary of State to refuse to take any action. But suppose the recommendation of the Fisheries Committee was not for the removal of the dam but merely for some slight alteration in the fish pass or ladder which was included in the original scheme but was only a very subsidiary part of the original scheme, more or less tacked on as an afterthought, it is just possible that the same words would prevent the Secretary of State giving effect to a perfectly reasonable recommendation by the Fisheries Committee. I would be very grateful if the Solicitor-General would look into that and see whether those words cannot be redrafted so that a perfectly reasonable change which was recommended would not be rendered inoperative.

The Lord Advocate: I think that is a point to be looked into. It would not do to have an alteration of something which had been approved by this House, but the ordinary case, I think, will be where some modifications are called for by the Amenity or Fisheries Committee and there is no obstacle at all to carrying out those works. I see the point that a slight modification of approved work might be somewhat difficult to reconcile with these words, and I will certainly look at those words.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Charges of Board and general fund.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Sir David King Murray): I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, to leave out "from time to time."
This is practically a drafting Amendment, but I should like to say one word about the reason why we are proposing the alteration. Clause 10, as the Committee knows, refers to the prices that are to be charged by the Board for the supply of various types of electricity, and as the Clause at present reads it provides that the prices are to be determined by the Board from time to time. It was thought that in some quarters that might prevent


the Board from entering into a long-term contract, say, with a large power user at a fixed price. I myself did not share that view as to what this meant, and I do not think that the Board would have been tied in that way, but if we remove the phrase "from time to time," then there will be no reasonable doubt about the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, to leave out from the second "time" to "so," in line 36.
This is an occasion where the Government have somewhat met the situation. I put down this Amendment and discovered afterwards that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had put down one to follow in almost precisely the same words. I am grateful for small mercies, and I hope that they will be repeated before the Debate is finished. The reason for this is obvious. The Clause as drafted used the extraordinary and unexampled phrase "one year with another." I referred to this in the course of the Second Reading and pointed out that if this was to be the way in which the Board did its business, by this hand-to-mouth existence, it would be impossible for it to succeed. I pleaded then for a long term view. That is why I ask for changes in Clause 5 and I make the same plea here. No Board and no commercial concern could live from year to year in this way; it must be a long-term arrangement. These words are impossible words. I urge that they should be taken out and that we should substitute for these words more or less the words contained in Section 11 of the Act of 1926, to which we must naturally return so frequently in the course of this discussion. The words are:
The tariff shall be fixed so that, over a term of years to he approved by the Electricity Commissioners, the receipts may in fact balance the outgoings.
That is what the Secretary of State has accepted, and I am grateful for it, but may I ask for his explanation of another matter directly connected with this? In the Clause it states:
The prices to be charged by the Board for electricity supplied by them shall be determined by them in accordance with regulations to be made by the Secretary of State after consultation.

There is no precedent, as far as I know, for the word "regulations." There is no such provision in the Act of 1926. The Central Electricity Board is not put under this restriction. The Electricity Commissioners are not required under the Act of 1926 to make regulations. All that is required under that Act is that the Electricity Commissioners lay down the principles, the period, and the estimated margin that is to be allowed to the Board in making its charges, and I cannot see why any change is needed here. If the Electricity Commissioners were to do the same thing for this Board, namely, lay down the principles, the period and the margin, they would be doing all that is necessary. Why hamper this Board any more than necessary with very complicated tariffs? The Central Electricity Board has a simpler task than this Board will have to perform. The Board is not only a manufacturer of electricity but a distributor as well, and therefore it is a much more complicated job. Yesterday the Secretary of State asked, and we agreed, that it should have power to co-operate with the local authorities and the Secretary of State in the economic development of the Highlands. All these many functions of the Board make it necessary to give the Board more and more freedom. I want to know what the regulations are that the Secretary of State intends to lay down. Are they to be tight or loose, or what?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I gather that my hon. Friend is going to withdraw his Amendment, in view of the fact that it is covered by the Amendment put down by the Secretary of State which I shall move presently. But may I give an explanation in answer to my hon. Friend with regard to the necessity for regulations? He may remember that the Cooper Committee made certain recommendations as to the charges that should be made for electricity. For example, they recommended that authorised undertakers in the district should have prices regulated in a certain way and different charges for other people and so on. It would not do to put that kind of thing into an Act of Parliament, and accordingly it is to be done by regulations, which, of course, will come up for the approval of the Secretary of State. If my hon. Friend will look at the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North


Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Commander Galbraith), he will see the kind of thing which such regulations are to contain. The regulations are the only place where such matters can be dealt with, and accordingly I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied with this xplanation.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would my hon. and learned Friend say why he prefers his form of Amendment to mine? He has asked me to withdraw my Amendment, and if he can explain why his is a better one, I will withdraw it.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to withdraw his Amendment, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had put down a similar Amendment. It comes to the same thing.

Mr. Stewart: I think that mine is the better one.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not mind which way it is.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Stewart: I think it should be negatived.

The Lord Advocate: There seems to be some misunderstanding as to which Amendment the Committee are discussing. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was spea4ing to the second of his Amendments—in page 7, line 38, to leave out "equal one year with another," and to insert:
be such that over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners, they will equal.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member was undoubtedly out of Order, because that Amendment had not been called. The question before the Committee is that of the first Amendment.

Mr. Stewart: I understand that the Committee has noticed that one is tied up with the other.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member's first Amendment cannot surely now be passed, because already my right hon.

Friend's Amendment has been adopted by the Committee, and I do not see how they could both be adopted.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 7, line 38, to leave out "one year with another," and to insert:
over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has already explained the reason for this Amendment, and it conforms with his views and, I hope, with the views of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, at the end, to insert:
( ) Such regulations shall contain a provision that the Board shall not supply electricity directly to a large power user for use within the area of supply of any other authorised undertakers at a price less than the price at which the Board would be prepared to furnish a supply to such authorised undertakers either at the generating station of the Board or at a point on any transmission line belonging to or used by the Board.
This Clause, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland has told us, deals with the charges to be made by the Board as determined in accordance with regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, and the Amendment to which I am speaking would follow directly after the first Sub-section of this Clause. As the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) reminded the Committee yesterday, this House has always refused to allow competition in respect of the distribution of electricity, but in this Bill we depart from that principle. In Clause 2 (2, c) of the as amended, there is a duty imposed on the Beard to supply large power users in areas of authorised undertakers, provided always that the authorised undertaker consents, or that the Electricity Commissioners are satisfied that the Board can supply appreciably more economically than can the authorised undertaker. At first sight it appears to be very fair and reasonable that where the Board can, supply appreciably more economically, then the Board should make the supply, and where the authorised undertaker can supply appreciably


more economically, then he should supply. But in view of the fact that authorised undertakers can only obtain their supplies of electricity from the Board, that would only be fair if the same initial price was quoted to the authorised undertaker as the Board would be prepared to offer to the large power-user. I suggest that that is the only way under this Bill by which competition can be restricted and authorised undertakers given an opportunity to develop their areas along the most economical lines, which, of course, is very greatly for the benefit of the consumer. From the discussion which took place yesterday on Clause 2, I rather understood, from words used by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate, that it might be that they accepted the principle of which I have just spoken and that the only difference would be in the method of putting it into operation.
There are two courses open. Either this can be done by regulation, or it can be included in the text of the Bill itself. I would much prefer to see it included in the Bill, for the reason that an Act of Parliament is much more vital than a regulation. My right hon. Friend may make regulations, but they would in no way be binding on his successors in office. The whole object of the Amendment is to restrict competition and to allow authorised undertakers to develop their areas along economic lines. These matters, the Committee will remember, were very strongly stressed in the report of the McGowan Committee. I ask the Lord Advocate whether he will be good enough to accept this Amendment and place the matter beyond doubt instead of proceeding by regulation, which might be annulled at any time without reference to this House.

Sir Arnold Gridley: Yesterday; when Major Milner was in the Chair, I sought to deal with this Amendment in conjunction with three or four Amendments which were bracketed together for discussion on Clause 2. I do not propose to repeat the arguments I then made for the benefit of the Chair, Mr. Williams, as probably most Members who are present now heard what I said then. I want to explain, however, that we accepted the Government's Amendments

on Clause 2 with great reluctance and in the hope that when reaching this Amendment to this Clause we might be met. I want to submit two or three arguments which were not touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend when he moved the Amendment. I want to emphasise again that it can make little difference to the Board whether they themselves supply a large power user direct or that user takes the supply from an authorised undertaker. The reason is because that supply has to be provided at cost by the Board, and, that being so, I ask the Government to consider, this: What does it matter where a high-load factor industry is situated so long as the generating power comes, as it will, from the Board's hydro station? The Board will get the benefit of the business, whether they supply the transmitted current direct to the new industry or whether they give it to the new industry via an existing authorised undertaking.
There is another point. There is nothing we have so far discussed which makes it clear beyond doubt that if that new high-load factor industry wants to come into an area and take a supply at any point on the existing high tension transmission line and the authorised undertaker is in a position to take a supply from that point on the Board's transmission line, the Board will be under an obligation to quote the same price to the existing authorised undertaker as to the new prospective industry. In other words, wherever a supply has to be taken for the purpose of the new industry it ought to be provided at cost wherever it is to be delivered whether by the Board direct to the new industry or whether the authorised undertaker is to give a supply. These are powerful reasons why I would urge the Government to accept this Amendment, and make it clear in the regulations that they intend to carry out the principle they have already conceded in the Amendments which have been accepted to Clause 2. I think I have made out an overwhelming case for this Amendment, and I press the Government strongly to accept it.

The Lord Advocate: In the course of the discussion on Clause 2 yesterday I indicated that the Government were satisfied that the principle underlying this Amendment is right, because it means fair play as between the Board and the authorised undertaker. I do not feel


that we can put this matter into the Bill, but I give a categorical assurance that there will be put into the regulations a provision on the lines of this Amendment. I am not tying myself to the precise wording, but it will be on the lines of this Amendment. The reason why we do not wish to put the matter into the Bill is because this is only one of a number of matters which will have to be dealt with under the regulations, and we feel that it is not at all desirable that one matter should be mentioned in the Bill while others, equally important, are not mentioned. Further than that, on other Clauses we have been pressed to put in black and white into the Bill a number of things which in our view can be more properly dealt with either in the Schedule, the regulations or subsidiary documents. The great difficulty in giving way on one point and letting one Amendment of this character go into the Bill is that we shall have a shoal of others with an equally good case, and I ask my hon. friends to rest assured with the assurance I have given that this matter will be dealt with under the regulations. I cannot imagine any Secretary of State, in the face of that assurance, not inserting this matter in the regulations, as promised.

Commander Galbraith: I am rather disappointed that the Lord Advocate has been unable to accept this Amendment, but in view of the assurance he has given —a very definite assurance—I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But before doing so, I would ask him if he will make it clear that the supply will be given not only at the generating station but also anywhere on the main transmission line where tapping needs to take place?

The Lord Advocate: Of course, where-ever is the convenient place for the transfer from the Board to the authorised undertaker, that is the proper place at which to fix the price.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am a little disquieted by part of the argument used by the Lord Advocate, and I respectfully suggest that if I have understood him rightly, the Committee deserves rather more explanation. If I followed him correctly, his argument was that this was a matter appropriate to delegated legislation, to Order, that there were other such matters of equal importance

which were not in the Bill and that, therefore, this could not be put into the. Bill. It is an extremely dangerous doctrine that you are not to have in your primary legislation anything which is at all parallel with something else which is kept for delegated legislation. The House has more than once shown its disquiet about this kind of Ministerial view of delegated legislation in the past, and when we have a Bill before the Committee such as we have now, I do not think that kind of argument ought to pass without some comment.

The Lord Advocate: With reference to those observations, I put my argument on a much lower and more practical plane than my hon. Friend's observations. The strongest part of my argument, to my mind, is that a great number of other people have asked for a number of Amendments of a somewhat similar character to be put into the Bill which, in the aggregate, would be very confusing, on balance, to a person reading the Bill. We could not allow one unless we were prepared to allow them all, and I do not believe my. hon. Friend wants to have this Bill complicated by a vast number of citations which are better elsewhere.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I would like to get a little clarification. I am not certain that I followed the arguments of my hon. Friend or the Lord Advocate and that the machinery my hon. Friends asked for is the machinery they want. When we were discussing Clause 2 I had an Amendment on the Order Paper—which I did not move—which sought to do precisely what they want by the method of using the 1926 Act, with which they are familiar. The Government Amendment which was accepted adopted some of the sense of the words of that Amendment of mine. I want to remind the Committee that there is another provision now in law which might meet the case of my hon. Friends and enable the Lord Advocate, not to accept their Amendment, but to give them what they want. The Lord Advocate, I know, will remember the 1909 Act, Section 6, which enables the Electricity Commissioners to authorise the Central Electricity Board to give electricity to large power users through an undertaker at a special price. That is known in the industry as a fringe Order.


I should have thought that that would have met the point my hon. Friends were making. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does it not? I sympathise with them in that we do not want any method introduced into the Bill in regard to this matter which complicates the business or which breaks away from the established practice of the industry. What we are seeking in substance to secure is the established practice, namely, that the Central Board cannot supply directly to people outside but only through authorised undertakers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Application of money.)

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 2, leave out "they are," and insert "it is."

In line 3, leave out from the beginning, to "and," in line 4, and insert:
up to the amount required for that purpose, and any excess over that amount.

—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, to leave out "superannuation allowances and gratuities to," and to insert:
of, and payments made for the purpose of providing superannuation allowances and gratuities for,
The necessity for this Amendment arises from the fact that the Board will have the option, instead of paying superannuation allowances direct to its officers and servants, of adopting the Local Government Superannuation Act, and this alteration is necessary to provide for that case.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power of Board to borrow.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, after "subsection" to insert "and the interest thereon."
The Clause already provides for money borrowed by the new Board being secured on the Board's undertaking, but it does not specifically provide for the interest being secured, and, in order to remove any doubt on the matter, I move the insertion of these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 9, line 35, at the end, to add:
Provided that such suspension shall not be for a longer period than five years from the commencement of the financial year next after that in which such expenditure is incurred.
This is merely to limit the period during which the operation of the suspension of the annual provision for the repayment of borrowed money shall last. I understand it has the approval of the Government.

The Lord Advocate: These words are on the same lines as the proviso in Section 27 of the Electricity Act, 1926, and we think they ought to appear in this Bill also.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Power to issue stock.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any stock issued by the Board and the interest thereon shall be charged on the undertaking and all the revenues of the Board.
This is also for the removal of doubt. The Bill provides for money borrowed being charged on the undertaking but not stock. It is customary to make both provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE I5.—(Accounts and audit.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 46, at the end, add:
and shall place copies thereof on sale at a reasonable price."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Transfer of powers of Central Electricity Board and relations with that Board.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (1).
During the Second Reading Debate I gave an undertaking that, if it were possible, we should schedule to this Bill what has otherwise been proposed to be done by Order in Council. It proved possible,


and accordingly the first Sub-section is now inoperative and unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 25, to leave out "require," and to insert:
direct:
Provided that the Central Electricity Board shall not direct the supply of a smaller number of kilowatts in the said period or in any year or of a smaller number of units in any month than the number of kilowatts or,of units notified by the Board under paragraph (a) of this Sub-section in respect of that period, year or month.
This is a provision of a somewhat complicated nature to ensure that the appropriate price is paid by the Central Electricity Board for electricity which they take under Clause i6 from the new Board. The wording has been agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 32, leave out "an authorised undertaker," and insert "authorised undertakers."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Boards to act in collaboration and appoint joint committee.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, at the end, to insert:
in relation to any matter referred to in the last foregoing Sub-section.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) had drawn our attention to the fact that possibly Subsection (2) is rather too widely drawn, and, accordingly, we accept his suggestion that the power to delegate should be specifically limited to the matters referred to in the first part of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Acquisition of undertakings by agreement.)

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, at the end, to add:
Provided that the powers of this Section shall not be exerciscable in respect of the whole or any part of an undertaking which may be purchasable by any other authorised undertakers under existing statutory powers.
We have now arrived at a very important stage of these Amendments, which will require careful consideration,

and I hope we shall receive the fullest possible consideration from the Government if we are not forced to divide the Committee. Parliament has granted to the Grampian Company and others statutory powers to acquire by agreement undertakings inside their statutory area of supply, which number about 15 in all, and 10 of these have already been purchased and merged in the Grampian undertaking. Of the remaining five not yet acquired, three are already very closely allied with the Grampian Company by virtue of the fact of their taking supplies in bulk from the Company for the purpose of their local distribution. These are long-term agreements properly approved by the Electricity Commissioners. If, in due course, these remaining five undertakings desire to dispose of their undertakings, as the other 10 have done, they can only do so through the existing Company on conditions which have to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners, and, therefore, there is that safeguard that the terms of sale and purchase are fair, in the opinion of the Commissioners, to both parties. The nearest of these undertakings not yet purchased to any possible supply that might be given by the new Board is something like 80 miles away at present. Apart from that argument, the Clause cuts right across past legislation in two respects. It limits the statutory powers granted to the Company to acquire undertakings inside their area, and it permits competition for the acquisition of such undertakings by another body. Parliament has always said that there should be no competition of that kind. It is quite unnecessary. The terms of acquisition, no matter by whom these smaller undertakings may be acquired, have to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners.
The Government have put down an Amendment which, in the view of my friends and myself, does not meet the objections that I am raising at all. It would allow the new Board to negotiate with the undertaker proposing to, dispose of his undertaking and to enter quite secretly into a provisional agreement, and then they have to submit it to the Electricity Commissioners. The Commissioners then have to send on a copy of the agreement to the Company possessing the statutory right of purchase which


Parliament had granted them and give them an opportunity of making any representations thereon. I ask the Government to consider the altogether undesirable situation that might follow this entirely novel method of dealing with a matter of this kind. The power company having the statutory rights might say that the price was too low and that they would offer something more, or that the price was too high and that they did not think anybody ought to pay such a price. Who, then, has the right to decide? That right will be in the power of the Electricity Commissioners.
I ask the Committee to consider this. All the schemes which are to be formulated under this Bill are to be prepared by the Board and then submitted to the Electricity Commissioners for their approval. The Commissioners may, in their wisdom, say, "We do not like this or that part of your scheme; we want you to alter it in this direction or that." Ultimately, when the scheme is approved, it is one which is fathered substantially by the Electricity Commissioners. When it comes to a question of who is to buy these isolated undertakings with which this Amendment deals, it is the Electricity Commissioners, Who are the fathers of the Board's scheme, who will have the right to say, "We think the Board ought to buy this property and not the body to whom Parliament has given the power of purchase." I venture to say with great respect to the Electricity Commissioners, for whom I have a high regard, that this is bureaucracy in excelsis. If the Committee do not accept my Amendment, they are saying, "Parliament so far has had some control over electrical legislation, but we are now going to waive powers which hitherto we have always kept in our own hands and to hand them over to a body which will have complete responsibility for what they do." I hope that the Secretary of State will give full weight to the case I have submitted and that the Government will agree to accept the Amendment. On this point I feel so strongly, and I am so sure the Committee will be making a great mistake if it does not accept my Amendment, that I shall ask the Committee to divide upon it.

Mr. Johnston: The Amendment has undoubtedly some substance behind it, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I

say that he has proved himself a splendid advocate on one side and has not exactly seen the whole problem. What is involved here, if my information is correct, is that there are two local authority enterprises and one company enterprise still within the ambit of the Grampian Power Company. The Grampian Company have in effect power by agreement, but only by agreement, to acquire these undertakings. Parliament never said that they should have a monopoly and that no one else should ever be able to acquire these undertakings. Parliament did say in the Grampian Company's charter, however, "You shall have the right by agreement to acquire the enterprises of the Buckie and Lossiemouth Councils and the Peterhead Company." That is how the matter stands now. If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that there were no precedents for alternative offers of this kind being made available. My information is that there are at least six examples of cases where authorised undertakers possess competitive powers to purchase other undertakings by agreement. In three of these cases the competitive powers are entirely unqualified. They are the Yorkshire Electric Power Company and the Lancashire Electric Power Company; the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Company—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not carry these illustrations in such a way that other hon. Members may feel that they must reply to them.

Mr. Johnston: It is essential for the purpose of the Bill to show that we are not importing any innovation.

The Deputy-Chairman: I agree, but I do not want the illustrations introduced in any controversial sense. An illustration may be simple without being controversial.

Sir A. Gridley: You will surely give me the right to make a brief comment on these illustrations, because there is a complete answer to them?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am only saying that the illustration should be brief.

Mr. Johnston: I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. I am pointing out that there are examples of cases where authorised undertakers now possess competitive powers to purchase other


undertakings by agreement, so that it is hardly correct of the hon. Member to say that there are no precedents. It may be perfectly true that some of these local authorities are a considerable distance away from where the power may be created. Unless it can be shown to be advisable that Buckie, for example, or Lossiemouth should in the national interest and the interests of cheap power be taken over by the new Board, there is no case for interfering in the slightest degree with the Grampian Company's rights. They have the rights anyway. I see the force of the hon. Gentleman's comment that the Government's proposed Amendment might mean that the new Board could enter into negotiations secretly with, say, the Buckie Council to the prejudice of the Grampian Company. I can see that some possible guarantees might have to be given under that heading, and I am willing to examine it.
The point I would like to put is this: Here are two local authorities. There is no question at the moment but that they have only one potential buyer, that buyer being the Grampian Company. We are not interfering with the Grampian Company's charter or seeking to say that the Grampian Company shall not be allowed to purchase the local authority undertakings. What we say is that it is improper that Parliament should say that these local authorities shall be bound to only one purchaser and shall have no option of going anywhere else. If the hon. Member envisages circumstances where a connection which had to run from 80 miles away would be highly uneconomic and undesirable, we will be willing to put in any safeguards he likes against any stupid or foolish purchase of that kind. That is the province of the Electricity Commissioners anyway, and they would say that it could not be justified. That would be the end of it. I submit that the Government are right in saying that we ought not to bind two local authorities to only one buyer and that here is a question of competition, it may be between the Grampian Company and the public Board, but that this competition is one for which there are precedents. The hon. Member says that he will have something to say about the terms of those precedents I shall be willing to hear what he has to say about them, but I assure him that this is hypothetical all the way

through and that Buckie may not want to sell their undertaking to anyone. We have no knowledge of any potential negotiations. If it were felt in the Highlands that we had passed a Measure which had bound two local authorities to only one purchaser of their undertaking, the Grampian Company, there would be a considerable storm of opposition That would not make for harmonious co-operation in the provision of cheap electricity and the amenities of civilisation in the Highlands between the Grampian Company and the Board, which we are all anxious to promote.

Sir A. Gridley: I really think the Secretary of State has not done himself justice in the arguments with which he has tried to convince the Committee. He has admitted that the question of whether the new Board is likely at any time ever to be in a position to purchase these undertakings is extremely remote. He also said that these local authorities might blame Parliament for binding them to one purchaser. Parliament has already bound these undertakings to one purchaser, and hundreds of others like it, all over Great Britain. We are not departing from any sinister behaviour of Parliament in the past. Parliament has carefully considered what powers should be granted for the development of electricity supply throughout the country, and now we are being asked to do something which is entirely novel and to no advantage to those concerns so distant away. It is obvious that the reason for this Clause has nothing to do with the Bill or the circumstances of the undertakers inside the Bill. The only conclusion I can come to is that for other reasons it is desirable to establish a precedent by getting a Clause of this kind into the Bill. I ask the Committee in a case like this to reserve its rights until we come to consider, as we may well have to do, improving the existing legislation which governs the electricity supply of Great Britain. Those of us who arc associated with it are prepared to assist in the reorganisation which we admit to a considerable extent will be necessary. Let us, therefore, keep our hands unfettered as to what we want to do when that time arrives and not find ourselves tied to any precedent which may have anything but a good influence on one side of the House or another when that time comes. The Government have


no case whatsoever for this Clause, and unless the Secretary of State is prepared to accept my Amendment or consider the matter further between now and the Report stage, I shall have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to go with me to a Division.

Mr. Johnston: May I remind the hon. Member that he promised he would say a word on the question of precedents?

Sir A. Gridley: I am sorry I had forgotten that point. The cases to which the Secretary of State has referred in Yorkshire and Lancashire are simply explained in this way. One undertaking, it may be in Yorkshire, desired to buy an undertaking in Lancashire which was on the Lancashire border, but contingent to the Yorkshire supply, where mains were available. They were boundary cases, and it was only common sense that where an undertaking was near the existing mains of another concern powers of purchase should be taken. There is no analogy between those cases and the present one. The other case is that of the Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority. Anybody who goes into the history of that concern will see that it has been a most unfortunate one of legislation on those lines and will, I am bound to say, never be repeated by this House.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I sympathise with the case made by my hon. Friend, although I have had no consultation with him beforehand.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member would sympathise with him.

Mr. Stewart: I have the same right to speak as my hon. Friend opposite, and I intend to exercise it. The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has established the fact that the change proposed by the Government is an abnormal change. There is not an established precedent, and it is an important change. I am not arguing the merits of the change to-day, but it is an important change which, if it is accepted, will create a precedent which may well be used in all other parts of the country. Again I say that I do not argue the merits, but a change so important, striking at the very root of the ownership, control and constitution of the great electricity companies, should not be introduced in a Measure applying to only one part of the country.

Earlier, either during the Committee stage or on Second Reading, or it may be in a speech outside, my right hon. Friend said this Bill was not the occasion for proposing changes in the constitution of the Electricity Commissioners. I said on Second Reading that I thought it was time the Electricity Commissioners were abolished, and I hold that view strongly, and the reply was that this was not the occasion for a change of that kind, and I say that it is not the occasion, either, for a change of the kind now contemplated. I think the issue here is one to which the Committee should not be asked to address itself on this Bill, and I would ask my right hon. Friend not to put us in the position of having to cause a Division and vote against him on a matter the merits of which I am not prepared to argue but the principle of which, I am quite satisfied, is not one which should be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: There is no question of whether the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) should speak, because he has as much right as other hon. Members here to speak, but it is as clear as anything that from the beginning of the discussions on this Bill he has not been speaking for his constituents or the people of Scotland but for vested interests. It is as clear as anything in the bluff he is trying to play on this particular Clause. All that the Clause says is that it shall be lawful for the Board to enter into an agreement for the transfer to the Board of the whole or any part of an undertaking. That is a terrible, an awful change. That is going to determine the whole constitution of this country, according to the hon. Member for East Fife. It is very clear that this is a good and desirable Clause. The hon. Member dare not argue against it, and only says, "While I am not expressing an opinion whether it is good or bad, it is such a fundamental change, the whole character of the Constitution of the country would be so altered if this Clause were passed, that you ought not to pass it." I say that from the very start of this Bill he has been speaking here for vested interests outside and has not been a wee bit concerned about his constituents or Scotland.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 141.

Division No. 19.
AYES.



Beit, Sir A. L,
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Colegate, W. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.



Gates, Major E. E.
Salt, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THW AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Staffd)
Commander Galbraith and


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Wells, Sir S. Richard
Mr. Henderson Stewart.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Helmore, Group Capt. W.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Barr, J.
Hill, Prof. A. V.
Richards, R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ridley. G.


Beattie, F. (Catheart)
Horabin, T. L.
Ritson, J.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Beechman, N. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W.


Benson, G.
Hunter, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Blair, Sir R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sandys, E. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Jennings, R.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stlg &amp; C'km'n)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sloan, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Snadden, W. McN.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lawson, J. J.
Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Leslie, J. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Lewis, O.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Stokes, R. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Storey, S.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Doland, G. F.
McCallum, Major D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E.
McEntee, V. la T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Etherton, Ralph
McNeil, H.
Tomlinson, G.


Findlay, Sir E.
Makins, Brig.-Can. Sir E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Foot, D. M
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fox, Flight- Lieut. Sir G. W. G.
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. MoL.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Medlicott, Colonel Frank
Westwood, J.


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Mills, Sir F. (Leylon, E.)
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Gallacher, W.
Molson, A. H. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H.


Gluckstein, Major L. H.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Windsor, W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Guy, W. H.
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Woodburn, A.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Nunn, W.
Woods. G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Palmer, G. E. H.
York, Major C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Parker, J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannah, I. C.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Hardie, Agnes
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Price, M. P





TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, at the end, to add:
(2) The Electricity Commissioners before approving under the last foregoing sub-section an agreement for the transfer to the Board of any undertaking which any other undertakers ale empowered by or under any Act to acquire shall notify those undertakers that the agreement has been submitted for their approval and shall consider any representations which those undertakers may make.
This Amendment is intended to ensure that before any negotiations are completed between the Hydro Board and any existing undertaker within the ambit of the Grampian Company's purchase rights, the Grampian Company will be informed. I hope that the Committee will accept these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, at the end, to add:
( ) Section fifteen (which relates to compensation for deprivation of employment) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, shall apply and have effect in the case of the transfer to the Board in pursuance of this section of the whole or any part of any such undertaking as is referred to in this section as if such transfer were the acquisition under or in consequence of the said Act of 1926 of a generating station and as if the Board referred to in the said section fifteen wore the Board constituted by this Act.
This Amendment deals with the position of officers and servants of undertakers who may be deprived of their employment by reason of amalgamations or transfers of undertakings which may take place as a result of the Bill. The


purpose of the Amendment is to extend to these officers the provisions relating to compensation for loss of office contained in the Electricity Supply Act of 111)26 and in the Acts of 1919 and 1922. These provisions are complicated and I conceive that there is no need for me to enter into the details. It is sufficient to say that these provisions have been the subject of enactment for a number of years and have been found to be satisfactory. The intention of this Amendment is that these provisions should be extended to officers and servants of undertakings who may be deprived of their employment in the same way as they extend to officers and servants deprived of their employment under the earlier Acts.

The Lord Advocate: We are in agreement with the Amendment, but after considering the matter, we are of opinion that it is already covered by the Bill as it stands. My hon. and learned Friend wishes to put into the Bill an adaptation of Section 15 of the Act of 1926. It happens that Section 15 does nothing more than adopt and expand Section 16 of the Act of 1919, and that is the operative provision. We have therefore thought it better to make our amendment by means of a direct addition to the terms of the 1919 Act. If hon. Members care to look at the new Schedule which may be moved later, they will find words which apply those provisions of the 1919 Act to amalgamations under the Bill. I can therefore assure my hon. and learned Friend that the point is met by the present draft.

Mr. Hutchinson: Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I ask the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied that the whole of the provisions of the 1926 Act, including the Fourth Schedule, will extend to amalgamations under this Bill?

The Lord Advocate: I think that has been checked, but as my hon. and learned Friend has raised the matter, I will certainly look into it again and make sure of it.

Sir Herbert Williams: We ought to be clear about this most extraordinary Schedule. It says in the main what it does not do. Hon. Members will see that it says:
The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. The Section shall not apply to the Board.

That sort of thing is repeated. Nothing does apply to the Board. We want to know what does apply to the Board. The Law Officer has not indicated what particular thing does apply to the Board. It ought to be made clear beyond a doubt.

The Lord Advocate: If hon. Members will look at Clause 18 of the Bill, they will see the words that are imported. It is the only Section applying to matters of this kind. Therefore I think we have covered the point.

Sir H. Williams: This is the most extraordinary form of drafting I have ever seen, and I ask the Committee to look at it. The Schedule proposes to insert into Section 16 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, the words:
or Section eighteen of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943.
Accordingly, when anybody in future reads the Act of 1919, as amended, they will see it contains a reference to an Act of Parliament passed 24 years later. That is legislation by reference of the maddest kind I have ever heard of. When the Government are trying to amend a Statute they should not do it by inserting into it something passed 24 years later.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(joint use of main trans-mission lines.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, to leave out "joint."
This is the first of four Amendments, the purpose of which is to make certain that Clause 19 shall work both ways. At present it entitles the Board to make use of the mains belonging to authorised undertakers. It is thought desirable that there should also be power to authorised undertakers to make use of mains belonging to the Board. The provision will be inserted later—I hope it will—to make certain that the original owner is not to be prejudiced by the handing over of surplus capacity. It is obviously highly desirable that in every possible case there should not be duplication of expensive mains. If there is excess capacity in existing mains, it is proper that either way it


should be available for use the other owner.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 31, after "them,"insert" by the other."

In line 31, leave out "the Board," and insert "either of them"

In line 32, leave out "any such undertakers," and insert "the other."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, to leave out "with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners."
As there are other Amendments dealing with very much the same point, perhaps we might discuss them together, Mr. Williams.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes. There is a further Amendment by the hon. Member to leave out words in line 35. We can discuss them together.

Sir A. Gridley: I have also to refer to the Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State affecting the same line. The reason for my Amendment is to remove power to the Commissioners to determine the terms upon which joint use of electricity transmission lines may be made. If passed in its present form, the Clause would confer on the Board, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, the right to use the main transmission lines of any authorised undertakers on any terms the Electricity Commissioners might decide. That would go far beyond existing legislation. The largest Board of this kind is the Central Electricity Board, with its network spread all over the country. Under the Act of 1926, Parliament conferred upon the Central Electricity Board the right to use the joint transmission lines of existing undertakers, by agreement with those undertakers. That arrangement works perfectly. joint use is made all over the country, without the necessity for any other person or authority coming in to decide upon what terms joint use should be made. Under the Bill, we are putting the new Board in the same position as if the Central Electricity Board were to function over the area, and giving them new powers, which the Central Electricity Board has found completely unnecessary. It is difficult for

me to understand the inclusion of a Clause the value of which is nil and which cannot possibly be needed in the case of this Board, with its relatively small area in Scotland.
I am bound to repeat that once again Parliament is saying, "The powers we kept in our own hands until now we are no longer worthy to retain. Let us hand them over to a bureaucratic body and absolve ourselves of all responsibility." I shall refer once again to the arguments used by some of my hon. Friends on the other side yesterday. They asked, in long speeches, for everything in this Bill to be under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member voted against it.

Sir A. Gridley: I am being betrayed—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is not only being betrayed but is going back to something which covers a very wide field indeed.

Sir A. Gridley: I am sorry if I transgressed. I think you will acquit me, Mr. Williams, of any wilful intention of so doing. The Government have put down an Amendment which provides that before their consent is given the Commissioners are to be satisfied that such use will not interfere with the use made, or likely to be made, of the lines of another party. I do not know whether those of us who hold property, of whatever kind it may be, like the prospect of somebody coming along and saying, "'A' join on with you, 'B,' to have the joint use of this property, and if you cannot agree on terms, we are going to come in and say what these terms will be." We are dealing with a Measure which is thoroughly bureaucratic, and the attendance in the Committee during the discussion of these Clauses has been extremely thin, because so few other than Scottish Members take an interest in Scottish legislation. Therefore there is no real understanding, or hearing indeed, of the arguments put forward for Amendments to Clauses. It seems of very little use to try to keep the Committee right by virtue of the experience one has acquired over a long period of years in the industry. All I can do is


to point these things out to the Committee. If, in its lack of understanding, it makes mistakes in legislation, then the responsibility is not mine.

The Lord Advocate: I regret to say that we cannot see our way to accept this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment appears to be to allow someone who has no particular use for the line himself to refuse access to it by the person who has use for it. [Interruption.] If I understood my hon. Friend, he wants to allow the owner of a line to say to the Board, "You may not have access to this line," because he wants to delete, if I understand him aright, the provision which enables the Board to override the unwillingness of the owner and insist upon having access. I may have misunderstood him.

Sir A. Gridley: May I say that what is proposed is that it should be settled by an arbiter appointed by the Secretary of State?

The Lord Advocate: I certainly misunderstood my hon. Friend's reference to the question of agreement being necessary under existing legislation. I understood him to say that he objected to that being altered. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. He now agrees that we are to depart from existing legislation to this extent, that it is no longer to be open to the undertaker, as it is under the existing legislation, to say, "I will not grant any assistance." My hon. Friend agrees that there should be provision for the forcing of access if the owner refuses it, but his only question is what should be the tribunal to decide the issue. We are both departing from existing precedents at that rate, and the question is the narrow one of which should be the tribunal. There would be a great deal to be said for an arbiter being the tribunal if this were only a question of settling finance, settling the amount of compensation, but it is a great deal more than that, because if the Committee accept the Amendment which will shortly be moved the Electricity Commissioners must determine what use, if there is any surplus, can properly be granted to the requesting body. If there are two inquiries, surely it is unnecessarily cumbrous? If I understand the picture aright, there is first to be an inquiry by the Electricity Commissioners as to what

surplus capacity there is, and there is to be another decision as to whether that should be handed over and, if so, on what terms. Perhaps the arbiter is to be the person who is to state whether surplus capacity exists?

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Is it possible for a Minister to argue against an Amendment on the ground that there are to be certain words in the Bill which are not yet proposed?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is permissible to say that an Amendment is not necessary because later we are going to do something else.

Sir H. Williams: Further to that point of Order. The Lord Advocate is arguing that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) is unnecessary because if it is passed there is going to be another Amendment which will result in two tribunals dealing with the one job. Surely that is improper. The Amendment mentioned by the Lord Advocate is not yet part of the Bill, and there is no need that it should be part of the Bill. Therefore he is bringing in a matter of complete prejudice in bringing in something which is not under discussion.

Mr. Stephen: I listened to the hon. Member for Stockport, and I took it that he asked for discussion on these three Amendments when he formally moved his first Amendment. That is a common practice of the Committee, so that we will not repeat the discussion, and also in order that the question may be dealt with in a comprehensive way which would not otherwise be possible. I think the Lord Advocate is simply following that practice.

The Deputy-Chairman: If we kept to the strict rules of accuracy—and in theory we should never depart from them—the Lord Advocate is wrong, but it is such a small point that it is in the interests of the Bill and of the Committee that we should discuss several points like this. I think he is wise in taking the course he has done.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have an Amendment on the same point. Is it permissible for me to speak in this general discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, I think it would be a good idea if the hon. Member did so, with the consent of the Committee.

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps I had better finish my remarks on the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport before I deal with anything else. I think we have got so far that we are all agreed there should be some provision in default of the agreement of the parties and the question is what should the tribunal be. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend regards the arbiter mentioned in the second Amendment as the appropriate tribunal for every possible question that can arise under Clause 19 in its present or amended form. If he does, I should disagree with him, because of a great many questions—the prospective Amendment is only one of them—which are of a technical character which no arbiter could solve without a technical assistant or assessor. All those questions are appropriate for the Electricity Commissioners to decide. If the Committee agree with me so far, I submit that it would be unnecessary to bring in an arbiter as a second tribunal to decide part of the issue when the Electricity Commissioners are well qualified to decide the whole issue, and that we should be well advised to leave it all to them.

Sir H. Williams: The Lord Advocate's speech is based on the assumption that this is a coercive Clause. It is not; it is only enabling. It enables two authorised undertakers to enter into an agreement to do something which, at the moment, is, I think, illegal. Then two issues arise. If the one authorised undertaker, the Board, decides to enter into an agreement with another authorised undertaker, in the public interest it may have to be decided that the terms which the existing undertaker demands from the Board are terms which are fair and equitable between all parties concerned. That is the issue dealt with by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). There is the further issue, a technical one, that if the Board enter into this arrangement with this other authorised undertaker, will the partial use by the Board of the transmission system of the other authorised undertaker prejudice the consumers of the other authorised undertaker? These are two completely separate issues.
The first thing is the terms. A great many people in the electricity supply industry, with which I used to be connected, have very little faith in the Electricity Commissioners, neither the municipal undertakers nor company undertakers. They do not regard them as a very competent body. If you could take a ballot among all the people engaged in the electricity supply industry, Which is two-thirds municipal, as to whether the Commissioners should be continued or wiped out and their powers put directly under a Minister, I believe you would have an overwhelming majority for eliminating the present body of Commissioners. I do not think they are an efficient body. They are dilatory. What a Minister does may be subject to interrogation in this House. As to what the Commissioners do, the degree of interrogation is very limited. I think in these matters, when the terms under which a transmission line may be used which may have the effect of altering the prices at which people buy electricity are determined by Act of Parliament, it should be competent in this House to address questions on the cost to the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Secretary of State for Scotland. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is carried, that would be possible.
As regards the purely technical point, the same investigation could be used on both points, on price or any technical risk involved. It is easy to associate with the arbiter a technical assessor if he is wanted, but I do not think the arbiter would want one. He would hear both sides, and anyone with a grievance, who felt that this transmission was so heavily loaded that it was undesirable that any power should be transferred from it, could put his case, and it would be a matter which anyone with reasonable intelligence could decide. There is a very powerful case for this Amendment and no need at all for the Government Amendment, and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will succeed in his proposal.

Mr. Stephen: I am surprised at the attitude of the Mover of the Amendment and his supporter. Yesterday they took an entirely different point of view when hon. Members on this side of the Committee sought to place responsibility on the Secretary of State for Scotland. Even the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), in his Amendment, places the


responsibility on the Secretary of State for the appointment of an arbiter. The Secretary of State in drafting the Bill has already decided upon the arbiter, and that it should be the Electricity Commission. I do not know whether it has occurred to him or not, but that is really the effect of the Bill as it stands. He has appointed the Electricity Commission. The hon. Member does not seem to realise that and is asking him to do it again.

Sir A. Gridley: I may be very dull—I do not pretend to be as extraordinarily bright as "The Three Musketeers" over there, but my point is that the Secretary of State is appointing someone to judge his own case. That is the difference between the Commissioners and an independent arbiter.

Mr. Stephen: Under the Amendment any arbiter may be appointed by the Secretary of State.

Sir A. Gridley: The Electricity Commission have to approve of schemes and they would, naturally, like to see their views prevail and to give decisions accordingly.

Mr. Stephen: If the Amendment were accepted by the Government it would still be the view of the Minister that the arbiter should be the Electricity Commission. Another point that struck me in the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport was that he was warning us very gravely about the interference with property rights involved in the use of the transmission system of some other undertaker. I wonder at the barefaced audacity of a statement like that from the hon. Member in view of his own record with regard to so much of the legislation that has been passed in the House of Commons. All my constituents, whose property mainly consists of labour power, are having their property directed every day. There is not a separate arbiter for them. There are hardship committees, and the hon. Member voted for them, but when it comes to material property he gets all hot and bothered about it.

Sir H. Williams: I would remind the hon. Member that I deliberately declined to vote for the power to direct labour and I am also supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: I possibly did not realise the importance of the support of the hon.

Member for Stockport in this connection. I apologise to the hon. Member. I did not realise that he was the power behind the throne. The Government are well advised, in dealing with this matter, to leave the decision in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, many questions will arise and the hon. Member should not be afraid of the possibility of action by the Electricity Commissioners. I hope that the Government will not yield either to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Stockport or the complaints of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: There has, apparently, been a great deal of dissension on this matter but underlying all the speeches there is a general measure of agreement. It is generally agreed that, at some point, somebody should act as arbiter, and I think it will be agreed there are two points that the arbiter will have to examine. One is the technical problem of the supply of electricity and the other the problem of financial terms. The Lord Advocate was right in bringing up that point. The Amendment that I have on the Paper—in page 13, line 35, to leave out from "conditions" to the end of the Clause, and add:
(other than financial terms and conditions) as those Commissioners may determine and on such financial terms and conditions as shall be determined failing agreement by an arbiter appointed by the Secretary of State, and the arbiter may, in any case in which he thinks it expedient to do so, call in the aid of one or more qualified assessors and hear the case wholly or partly with the assistance of such assessors
—probably meets the general view of the Committee. My suggestion is that as regards the technical problem of electricity supply, the Clause should stand as it is and that the Electricity Commissioners should be the judges, and the Secretary of State should be supported. But on the problem of financial terms, the body concerned should have the same right to apply for arbitration by an outside person as have the various authorised undertakers under many sections of the Act of 1926. Under that Act the authorised users of electricity are given the right in several cases to apply for an arbiter on financial points outside the purview of the Electricity Commissioners. The Lord Advocate will recall


Sections 4, 9 and 14 of the Act of 1926 which provide for an arbiter on financial terms giving the companies the right to apply for that method. If Parliament thought it right then to give the companies that power, why is it withdrawn now? I ask that the Government continue the decision made by Parliament in 1926. If it were in order now, I would move. my Amendment In any case I feel that my Amendment covers the ground and represents the widest measure of agreement.

Major Lloyd: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he can conceive any circumstances in which the Electricity Commissioners might not be biased if they were arbiters? They are concerned with the preparation of schemes all the way through and have to approve of several things. If a dispute arose we might have a set of circumstances in which they would be biased arbiters, and, if so, ought they to be arbiters instead of having an independent tribunal?

The Lord Advocate: I hardly think that it is possible to conceive of any circumstances which would necessarily imply bias or that the Electricity Commissioners would prejudge the issue, which is probably what my hon. and gallant Friend also has in mind. They are concerned with schemes at many stages. This, however, raises a different issue and it is right that the tribunal which has general responsibilities for the transmission of electricity all over the country, should have to take the responsibility of making what may be a difficult decision. I am not impressed by the criticisms of the Electricity Commissioners as such, for the reason that we have heard a certain amount in favour of the McGowan Report, which not only does not agree with the criticisms, but suggests that the Commissioners should be entrusted with further duties. I take my stand on the fact that the Commissioners are an established body of experts to deal with judicial and quasi-judicial matters in the electrical industry and we should not upset that arrangement in this Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: That is the whole point of my Amendment. I am asking that the Commission be not upset. I said that under the Act of 1926, arrangements are made for financial questions to

be settled by the arbiter and I am asking that that decision be maintained.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Secretary of State is not moving the other Amendment—in page 13, line 35, at the end, to add:
Provided that the Electricity Commissioners, before giving consent to such use, shall be satisfied that such use will not interfere with the use made or likely to be made by the owners of the transmission line"?

Mr. Johnston: I am not moving it.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, at the end, to add:
Provided that the Electricity Commissioners, before giving consent to such use, shall be satisfied that such use will not interfere with the use of the transmission line which may from time to time require to be made by the owners thereof in order to meet their requirements.
The Clause, as now amended, gives permission to the Board and authorised undertakers to enter into agreements to use the main transmission lines belonging to either of them and where they cannot reach agreement the district commissioners decide the matter. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the owner of the main transmission line, whether the Board or some other producer, shall have the use of that line if the full capacity is required. I observe from the Amendment put down in the name of the Secretary of State that he is seemingly of the same opinion. The only difference between the two Amendments lies in the fact that the Secretary of State's Amendment says,
The Electricity Commissioners, before giving consent … shall be satisfied that such use will not interfere with the use made or likely to be made by the owners of the transmission line.
I want to draw attention to those words because that is at the root of the whole matter. It is impossible in a developing undertaking to say at any moment what use is likely to be made of the transmission lines by the owners. You have a large power user—and that is what we are trying to get into this district—suddenly coming into the area and you want to be able to supply a large amount of electrical energy. If the line is being used by some other body as well as yourself you may be unable to give the supply. I think the Committee will agree that the


owner of the line should be able to supply anyone coming into his district and that he should have the first use of the line. Instead of the thing being decided once and for all by the Commissioners, the Amendment asks that it may be considered from time to time. A line may be capable of being used by some other party in the meantime, but later conditions may change, and we wish the thing to be reviewed in the light of the circumstances as they are at that date. That is the whole object of the Amendment and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.

The Lord Advocate: There was no difference at all between our intention in our Amendment and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, which we agree makes it clearer that there should be reconsideration from time to time. It is quite right that there ought to be that reconsideration and we are quite prepared to accept his wording instead of ours.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Consumers to benefit from reduction in charges.)

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 13, line 37, to leave out from "Board," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
shall not later than the expiry of three months or of such longer period as the Electricity Commissioners may in any case allow after the end of each year of account in which such supply is received make a return to the Commissioners setting out the actual cost of such supply during the preceding year of account, and an estimate of the cost at which the undertakers could themselves have provided a like supply had this Act not been passed and if the aforesaid actual cost is less than the said estimate, after such adjustment thereof, if any, as the Commissioners are satisfied ought to be made the Commissioners may direct that the undertakers shall apply for the benefit of their consumers by a reduction of tariffs or charges, or otherwise the difference between the aforesaid actual cost and estimate as so adjusted except to the extent that the Commissioners are satisfied that the said difference has already been so applied.
This Amendment is an attempt to meet a promise given on the Second Reading of this Bill, which was that where the Board supplies electricity to an authorised undertaker, that electricity should be conveyed in turn by the

authorised undertaker to their consumers, without any added profit—in other words, that the electricity is transmitted at cost price plus, of course, cost of transmission. We are informed that Sections 31 and 32 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, are very difficult to operate, which means that it is difficult to ensure that supplies are transmitted to consumers by an authorised undertaker without any undue or hidden profit. This Amendment, framed on the best advice we can get, is to make certain that the cheaper electricity which we propose to supply to authorised undertakers shall be transmitted to the ordinary consumers in their areas with the minimum amount of added profit, though, of course, the undertakers are entitled to their ordinary charges for transmission and so on. Long and elaborate calculations are involved in these matters and I do not propose to weary the Committee with them, even if I were capable of explaining them, but; in effect, the Amendment says that within a certain period not later than the expiry of three months, or such longer period as the Electricity Commissioners may in special cases allow, a return shall be made by the authorised undertaker as to the actual cost at which they get this electricity from the new Board and also as to the cost at which they themselves could have provided a like supply had this Act not been passed.
The difference between the two amounts is the amount which the Commissioners may direct a company or a local authority to apply by way of reduction of tariffs to consumers. The difference between the price at which they get electricity and the price at which they themselves could have provided a like supply of electricity is the amount which, under the terms of this Amendment, we say should be passed on to the consumers by way of reduction of tariffs. I take it that everyone agrees with the purpose of this Amendment; that we should not supply electricity at cost price to concerns which, in turn, would make a profit from the distribution of that electricity. Our desire is that electricity shall be produced and supplied in the Highland areas at the lowest possible price and this Amendment is an attempt to make clear—

Mr. Sloan: To make clear?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, to make clear.

Mr. Sloan: The right hon. Gentleman is telling me.

Mr. Johnston: I am telling the hon. Member; at any rate, I am doing my best. This is an attempt to make it clear that we 'shall supply electricity at cost price and take whatever actuarial means are at our disposal to ensure that it shall be transmitted to the consumers of the authorised undertakers at the price at which we supply it, plus the ordinary cost of transmission.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to be quite clear on this point. I think I understand the general principle which the Secretary of State has enunciated, but what I am not quite clear about is whether the reduction which will be brought about as a result of this Amendment, will apply to all consumers who are supplied by a particular authority, or whether it will apply to particular consumers who are being served by an additional supply. Is additional supply to be given in bulk at the centres of the organisation, or in a way particularly applicable to certain areas? What I supposed—probably wrongly—was that there was a certain area belonging to an original authority which could better be served by a public authority than by the original authority and I wanted to make sure that a particularly expensive area would not have to pay the original high rates and that the benefit brought about by the allocation of areas would accrue to the out-of-the-way districts to which the new supply was being brought.

Mr. Johnston: Let us take the hypothetical case of an authorised undertaker who has a large area of supply. The new Board sells to this authorised undertaker 10,000 kilowatts or whatever the number may be at x price. If it would have cost the undertakers more than x to provide that supply themselves the difference must be applied to all their ordinary consumers. That is to say they are not to apply the benefit of this cheap electricity to one section of their consumers alone; they have to reduce their tariffs to all consumers.

Mr. Buchanan: But an authorised undertaking may be electricity producers. That being so might it not happen that you would have two prices for electricity? Take the case of Fort William. They now supply electricity. This Board may

supply them with electricity in bulk at a fixed price. Fort William may be selling their own electricity at a higher price. You would say to them "This electricity must be sold at the price at which you bought it, plus the cost of distribution." But Fort William would be selling electricity made by themselves to another consumer at another price.

Mr. Johnston: This matter is extraordinarily difficult. I have sweated over this thing for a long time and I do not pretend to be able to make it crystal clear. Indeed, I am sure hon. Members engaged, in the industry often find great difficulty sometimes in understanding the implications of Sections 31 and 32 of the 1926 Act. Let me reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The Board sells at x price to the authorised undertaker and the amount of the difference between x price and the price at which Fort William would be able to manufacture a like supply of electricity themselves, must be applied in a general reduction to all Fort William consumers.

Mr. Pc-thick-Lawrence: I am not quite satisfied, possibly because I do not understand the matter, but I visualise a Highland district which is rather expensive to supply. In order to enable that district to get electricity at a reasonable price the Board comes in and gives an additional supply to the existing authority. The Secretary of State seemed anxious to prove that that new area was not to get a special advantage. I was rather anxious that the area should get that advantage; otherwise that supply to that particular out-of-the-way area might be prohibitive. If means were given to the existing authority to enable them to supply an out-of-the-way area that out-of-the-way area should get a considerable benefit from that new supply. It seems to me that the provision specially made by which there would be no special advantage given to the new area, might defeat the object for which the extra supply was being given.

Mr. Johnston: Is my right hon. Friend dealing with territories inside the Grampian area alone?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I was thinking of that.

Mr. Johnston: That is a different matter from the construction schemes outside the


Grampian Company's area which we envisaged under this Bill, and in which these conditions do not obtain. I now understand that my right hon. Friend is referring to isolated areas inside the Grampian Company's territory.

Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence: Yes.

Mr. Johnston: Then I ought to make it perfectly clear that we are not interfering in this Clause at all with the Grampian Company's tariffs, except in so far as the total amount of the difference between the cost of the cheap supply we are giving the Grampian company and the cost at which the company could have themselves produced that supply, must be applied all over their tariffs and all over their areas. Is that clear?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It is clear, but is it a satisfactory solution? Here you have certain areas inside the Grampian Company's authority which do not get the electricity at present because it is difficult to supply them. What I hoped was that special reduction of tariff in those areas would be achieved. I understand that this Amendment is to prevent that. I may have misunderstood the position but I hoped that that would have been the result.

Mr. Johnston: The Grampian Company has only one tariff inside its area.

Mr. Sloan: With the best intentions in the world I am not quite able to follow my right hon. Friend's explanation. The Commissioners, as far as I can see, are going to have some job if they have to separate the different sources of power and find out where a reduction in cost has to come in. In the first place, it seems to me there must be a fairly large amount of transmission before it will have the slightest effect upon the production of any undertaking. I think the Amendment means nothing at all to the undertakings which are having electricity transmitted to them. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us how they will separate their own production from that which is being taken in and let us know exactly where the consumers are to get the benefit from the concession that is being made by the Amendment.

Sir A. Gridley: I think it is clear that it would be a sensible course for the Government to take this Clause out of the Bill for the time being and think the

matter over before Report. Consider the position of the Grampian Company. They have their own hydro-electric station. In the course of the next three or four years they will presumably be connected up to the new Board's hydro station and be taking a considerable supply from that source. They are also connected up to the Central Electricity Board, with whom they have agreements, and therefore there will be pumping into the area of the Grampian Company very shortly, three different sources of supply, which may vary from time to time. It sometimes happens that there is a serious breakdown, and the Glasgow Corporation or the Clyde Valley Company, whose mains are all interlinked with the grid, will be the actual suppliers of current through the grid up to the North of Scotland. There have been breakdowns in Glasgow which have been met by transmitting from Yorkshire. It is impossible to say where and in what quantity, and at what load factor, you may be taking your supply from these three or four sources, or which consumers are actually getting the benefit of these supplies from alternative sources. It is a most complicated and cumbersome and absurd Clause.
Surely the commonsense way of dealing with the handing on of the benefit which comes from a very economic source of generation—water power—is to provide that the undertaking, if it is a company which is taking the supply, should have its dividends 'limited pro rata with its charges. There you have effective control and if the company, by virtue of getting a cheaper supply from the new Board's stations, is able to save £10,000 or £15,000 a year, which enables it at the end of the year to have a larger sum available for distribution, you can limit the dividends that it can distribute unless it makes a certain reduction in its tariffs. That is better than using a terrific steam hammer to crack what really ought to be a thin-shelled nut. The Commissioners are to be supplied annually by the undertaker with the cost of the supply taken and, having furnished the Commissioners with a hypothetical estimate of the amount for which they could put down a new station, and obtain current from the station, the Commissioners are then to decide whether that estimate is right or wrong, and once again the authorised undertaker is in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners. If all these duties


are to be put on the Commissioners, not only with regard to this undertaking but scores of others, the staffs will have to be multiplied ten times to enable them to deal with all these matters. I urge the Government, in their own interest, to withdraw the Clause and apply their minds to a far simpler method of achieving the same result.

Mr. Buchanan: This is a cumbersome Clause, difficult of administration, and one wonders whether it will work. One does not want to see Clauses which are of no use at all, particularly in an Act of Parliament which is to bring a new experiment to the Highlands. I see nothing but difficulty here. The Committee would agree on the principle that the supply of electricity, particularly if it is abundant, should not be used by any other undertaking as a means of financial gain. It should be used for the general benefit of the consumers, and not of picked consumers. It will be most difficult to apportion the supplies obtained from different sources, and it may prove not to be worth the investigation. It would be better for us if my right hon. Friend could adopt a simpler method. He is worthy of commendation and not of criticism for trying to do this. He would have been subject to much more criticism if he had done nothing. But I am not sure that this method is the best. I would ask him to look at it again and see whether there could not be an improvement on his Amendment.

Mr. Colegate: I share the hon. Member's feeling that the Secretary of State should be commended for his effort to pass on the benefit of a cheaper supply to consumers, but the Clause is so complicated that his object cannot possibly he achieved by it. There is a very simple test. Is it the type of 'agreement which any two private companies would enter into if a similar situation arose? Of course not. No one with commercial or industrial experience would negotiate or sign an agreement of this type. I urge that further consideration should be given to the matter and to alternative methods of passing on the benefits of the cheaper source of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) mentioned the limitation of dividends. That has worked extremely successfully with a large num-

ber of gas companies. A gas company working under that arrangement cannot increase its dividends except in so far as it decreases its charges to consumers. That is not a theoretical or highly complicated arrangement of the type set out in the Amendment, but it is a method which has worked successfully with great advantage to the consumer and has been a great incentive to efficiency on the part of the producers for a great many years. I would urge the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter and to see whether he cannot adopt that method of passing on the benefit of reduced charges to the consumer. It is a method I should like to see extended to many industries.

Sir H. Williams: I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to the appeals that have been made to him. I am trying to visualise how this will work. You have the actual cost, and then you go into the hypothetical cost—always a little difficult for those administering the existing Act so far as their relations with the Electricity Board are concerned. Having established that the hypothetical cost is lower than the actual cost, a lump sum payment will be made by the Board to the undertaking concerned. They find that they have, say, £5,000 which they did not expect. They then have to look at the whole of their accounts. They may have 20,000 or 30,000 consumers, and they must find out what each consumer's share is, go through all their accounts, and make out 30,000 cheques in order in some cases to return 2s. 6d. The cost of administration will be greater than the cost of the benefit, and it seems the most cumbersome method I have ever heard of. Not many people realise how costly these clerical operations are. The B.B.C. licence, for instance, costs is. to issue. It costs 8d. to cash a cheque. What will be the cost of sending a cheque for 2s. 6d.? It will cost Is. 2d. if you take postage, clerical work and the rest of it. It is a most cumbersome method, and it would be much better to let the money be carried forward into the next year and have some readjustment nr come method of adjusting dividends 'as has been suggested.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It seems to be the general view of the Committee that if any other method could be found, it would be wise to find it. Examples have been given of precedents in the case of.


gas companies which might well be adopted. Precedents are to be found also in the electrical industry, and the method of dealing with it is found in the Act of 1926, which has frequently been referred to. The Committee which dealt with that Act deserves the admiration of the House. It went into this Matter with minute attention, and it envisaged such a situation as we have here. In Sections 31 and 32 of that Act we have the whole thing placed before us. The consumer is completely safeguarded. We have to ensure that by the introduction of this new Board companies which take its supply do not make excessive profits but will pass them on to the consumer. Everybody is agreed about that. What we are trying to do is to find a way of ensuring it. My right hon. Friend produces a new provision which looks politically very attractive, but it is not necessary. It is window-dressing. Section 31 and 32 of the 1926 Act are by the Schedules incorporated in this Bill. Section 31 says:
On a power company commencing to receive a supply of electricity from the Board, the Minister of Transport may revise the maximum prices authorised under the special Act of the company to be charged by the company for supplies, other than supplies in bulk to authorised undertakers, and may revise the standard prices fixed by such Act and on such revision in determining the maximum and standard prices regard shall be had to any change in the cost of electricity to the company attributable to this Act.
Is not that completely analogous? Section 32 says:
Where any company, being authorised undertakers and not being a power company receive a supply of electricity either directly or indirectly from the Board, the Electricity Commissioners may, if, having regard to any change in the cost of electricity to the company attributable to this Act, they think it expedient, by a special order … make provision as to the relation between the charges to be made for electricity and the dividends to be paid by the company, etc.
In the first case we have the consumers' position safeguarded, and in the second we have the assurance that the company is not to make excess profits. What more can we ask, and why bother us with this cumbersome and unworkable Amendment?

Mr. Johnston: If it were all as easy as my hon. Friend seeks to explain it, I would not have moved this Amendment.

We are not only dealing with the Grampian Company; we are dealing with authorised undertakers and with local authorities. In the case of local authorities there is no question of dividends.

Mr. Stewart: Surely my right hon. Friend is not going to suggest that the local authorities will take advantage of their position and refuse a reduction to their consumers?

Mr. Johnston: That is what I am trying to explain. We are dealing not only with a company which earns and pays dividends, but with local authorities. We cannot, therefore, get a formula which applies readily equally to these types of producers. It is not so easy to relate any reduction in price to standard dividends. For example, the Grampian Company has, as the Cooper Report stated, been paying on an average only about 3⅘ths per cent., but their standard dividend, fixed by Section 10 of the Scottish Highlands Electricity Supply Order, 1932, is 8 per cent. Are we, therefore, to assume that before any advantage in prices is to be passed on to the consumer in the Grampian area the standard dividend of 8 per cent. is to be paid? If it were all so easy and could be boiled down to a simple formula we would have done it.
I agree that this form is not the last word to be said on the matter. We have had the advice of the Electricity Commissioners and of skilled accountants, and we have discussed it with the Grampian Company and everybody concerned. To the best of our knowledge and belief we can calculate the price at which we supply electricity to an authorised undertaker. There may be differences of opinion and calculation as to the cost at which a like supply of electricity could be produced by authorised undertakings, but we are assured by accountants that that is not impossible. We say that the difference between the cost at which the supply can be produced and the cheaper price at which it can be given ought to be transmitted to the consumers. I am willing in the light of anything that has been said to see between now and the Report stage whether there can be any possible Amendment that would be of advantage. We are all agreed on the principle. The sole point about which we have to make tip our minds is how to get a formula that is more or less watertight and that


will apply equally to authorised undertakers and local authorities. We admit the difficulties; we openly announce the difficulties; but we say that this is the best that we have been able to do up to now. We think it is watertight, but we do not guarantee it. It is the best we can do, but if between now and the Report stage we can get anything better, we will certainly get it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Application of Electricity Supply Acts to Board.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, after the first "Act," to insert:
and any scheme approved and confirmed thereunder.
This might be described as a drafting Amendment, but I should like to give a word of explanation about it. Throughout the Electricity Supply Acts there are references from time to time to special Acts of Parliament. These are special Acts conferring powers upon local authorities, companies and so on to produce and distribute electricity. In these specials Acts the detailed construction schemes and so forth are set out, whereas in the present Bill the details are left to the schemes which are to be approved of. The object of the Amendment is to secure that any reference to special Acts will apply not only to this Bill when it becomes an Act but to the distribution and construction schemes which are established under it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 14, line 8, to leave out from "1899," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
(2) The provisions of the aforesaid Acts and Schedule as they apply to Scotland shall in relation to the North of Scotland District have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications set forth in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
The object of this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking given on Second Reading by the Lord Advocate that the modifications and adaptations of the Electricity Supply Acts which are to be incorporated in this Bill and applied to this Board should be laid down in a

Schedule instead of being made by Regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Control of new generating stations.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out "other than the Board."
This Clause deals with the control of further generating stations or the extension of existing generating stations in the Board's area. As the Clause stands, there is a prohibition against erecting any new generating station of more than 50 kilowatts unless the consent of the Electricity Commissioners is obtained. We have come to the conclusion that there is no reason why that prohibition should be so wide. The whole object of this Clause is to safeguard the future operations of the Board. The Board is primarily a hydroelectric board, and therefore it is very necessary to provide that no one is to jump-in in front of the Board and make use of hydro-electric capacity which the Board might ultimately want, but there is not the same reason why the Board should be the only body to make new steam stations. Accordingly, the purpose of this Amendment and the two others which follow it is to take out of Clause 22 all reference to steam or non-hydro stations and to keep the Clause strictly to its proper functions, namely, the control of further utilisation of water power in the Highlands.

Sir R. W. Smith: The Board have power under the scheme to schedule the water which they require or which they may require, but supposing there is a company which wants to generate electricity from water which the Board have decided they do not propose to use. Why should we prevent that private company from generating electricity from water with a plant beyond a rating of 50 kilowatts? Why tie them down? Surely that would be very unfair.

The Lord Advocate: The Electricity Commissioners would certainly be misapprehending their functions if they refused consent under this Clause for some other reason than the protection of the


Board's future activities, and if it should turn out, as the hon. Member suggests, that it is clear that the Board have no interest in a particular source of waterpower the Commissioners ought to have no hesitation in giving their consent. I hope that that explanation of their functions is adequate.

Sir R. W. Smith: There is no necessity to secure the permission of the Electricity Commissioners provided the undertaking is under 50 kilowatts, and if the Board are not going to use the water in that area why should it be necessary to retain that restriction as to 50 kilowatts?

The Lord Advocate: The concession that a 50-kilowatt station can be erected is given because a station of that size in a place where the Board were ultimately going to develop hydro-electric power would not be so very embarrassing, but if there were a bigger station in a place where the Board were ultimately going to operate it would be embarrassing and hampering.

Sir R. W. Smith: But I am talking of an area where they are not going to operate.

The Lord Advocate: As I said, if they go to the Commissioners and ask for permission to put up a large water-power station in a place where it is plain the Board have no interest then it would be the duty of the Commissioners to give their consent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 15, leave out "generating station," and insert:
private generating station operated by water and.

In line 16, leave out "generating station," and insert
private generating station so operated."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. Colegate: I beg to move, in page 14, line r8, at the end, to add:
This restriction shall not apply to the establishment or extension of a private generating station.
Provided that, in the case of the establishment of a new private generating station, the owner thereof shall comply with any regulation made by the Electricity Commissioners as to the type of current, frequency and pressure to be used, but such regulations shall be

so framed as not to interfere with the economical and efficient working of the business for which the supply is generated.

The Chairman: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were discussed in conjunction with the following Amendment: In page 14, line 18, at the end, to add:
Provided that the Electricity Commissioners shall not refuse or withhold their consent to the establishment of any such new generating station or to the extension of any existing generating station as aforesaid in any case where such establishment or extension would having regard to all the circumstances be the most economic means of supplying the electricity required.

Mr. Colegate: The objects which I had in putting down my Amendment have practically been met by the Amendments introduced by the Secretary of State and by the remarks he made in answer to one of my hon. Friends behind me. I should like to make the position clear before I ask leave, if necessary, to withdraw the Amendment. The object of the Amendment originally was to safeguard what I may call modern technical processes. If one is using steam, naturally one ought to get every ounce of value out of it, and modern technical processes nearly always require one to make by-products. That side of the case has been met, because the Government Amendments provide that the restriction applies only to electricity generated by water power; but there is one point left in connection with electricity developed from water power which arises out of the prohibition on stations exceeding 50 kilowatts. If you are generating electricity by water-power, it is as necessary as in the case of steam to use the whole of the power available at a particular place. If there is water-power which would produce 250 kilowatts, it is not economical to take from it only 50 kilowatts, thus preventing the other 200 kilowatts being utilised. However, if I understand the Lord Advocate aright, where water-power has not been specifically scheduled for use by the new Board and somebody proposes to use that water-power to generate electricity, he will have no difficulty in obtaining the consent of the Commissioners to produce not merely 50 but even 250 kilowatts for his own purpose from that particular source of water-power. I understood from the Lord Advocate that unless the water-power was specifically scheduled—

The Lord Advocate: No, I do not say that. I say that if it could be shown that the Board had no interest in the future development of this place—and obviously the Commissioners would find out from the Board whether they were interested and if they said they were interested no doubt they would be asked to explain why—the Commissioners he wrong to withhn1,4 their sent.

Mr. Colegate: I think that meets my point. I put it positively, but I should have put it negatively, and said that if it is shown that the Board has no reasonable interest in the source of supply, then there would be nothing to prevent a person exploiting that water supply and exploiting it to its full value, providing he does not attempt to sell the current elsewhere but for his own purposes. I understand that the limitation about 50 kilowatts is not likely to apply, and that the Commissioners will not unreasonably withhold consent for him to develop the whole water-power available to him when the Board have said they have no interest in it. Could the Lord Advocate confirm that?

The Lord Advocate: I think my hon. Friend has stated the position accurately.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. W. Smith: I should like to ask whether, in the case of existing generating stations, they will be allowed to extend only to the maximum of 50 kilowatts, or could they extend to, say, 70 kilowatts?

The Lord Advocate: I confess it is a little difficult to give an answer in the period of a second, but what the Clause says is that, except with the consent of the Commissioners, it will be unlawful to erect
a new generating station having plant with a rating exceeding fifty kilowatts or to extend any existing generating station in the said district by the installation of plant with a rating exceeding fifty kilowatts.
I think that grammatically the 50 refers to the plant now to be installed, and though I do not want to tie myself, I think the answer would be 70.

Sir R. W. Smith: They will be entitled to go up to 70?

The Lord Advocate: I am not be tied to that, but that is my impression at the moment.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the consent of the Commissioners would still be needed?

The Lord Advocate: No.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Local inquiries.)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, to leave out "Where," and to insert:
The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall apply to any inquiry held.
This Amendment, and the Amendment which follows—in line 28, to leave out from "Act" to the end of the Clause—will, I feel sure, commend themselves to the Committee, particularly to my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. The Clause as it stands provides for the procedure at local inquiries, and makes reference to the detailed procedure set forth in an Act of Parliament which applies only to England. Accordingly, it anyone were holding a local inquiry, he would have to refer to this English Statute to find out the procedure. The object of the Amendment is to set up in a Schedule the procedure to be followed at these local inquiries, so that anyone wishing to ascertain the procedure will be able to look it up in the Schedule instead of going to an Act of Parliament which applies only south of the Tweed.

Mr. Buchanan: I can see the force of having this provision in the Bill, but hon. Members have complained all along that too little was in the Bill and too much was referred to other Statutes. I agree it is a simpler and handier method to have it in the Bill. I understand that it is the English Act which determines the procedure at the inquiry. That does not mean that it is bad; but is there not a form of inquiry in Scotland? What is the method now, and what is the objection to making the Act which covers present inquiries cover the inquiries under the Bill?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The procedure for local inquiries in Scotland is


rather out of date just now and really requires to be brought up to date. The hon. Member may be assured that, so far as any local inquiry becomes necessary under the Bill, the procedure will be up to date because it is to be set out in the Schedule. It corresponds, with certain exceptions, to the procedure detailed under the English Act of 1933, which is comparatively recent. By adopting, subject to certain modifications which are appropriate to the Bill, the proceedings set out in the 1933 English Act, we shall have a code for holding local inquiries under this Measure which will be very much more up to date than anything we have had in former inquiries.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 28, leave out from "Act" to the end of the Clause.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Power to conduct experiments.)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, after "generation," to insert "transmission."
The word "transmission" appears to have been left out by mistake. Surely it should be included.

Mr. Johnston: The word has been deliberately kept out. I will explain the reason why we should still prefer it to be kept out. There has been criticism about the whole of Clause 25 on the ground that, in so far as a large number of experiments have been conducted in other parts of the country it was unnecessary to have duplication. We say that there are special conditions and circumstances in the North of Scotland which require special experiments, with the approval of the Commissioners but not for transmission. There may be no duplication. We think that the Amendment which we shall next propose will meet the whole case.

Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister mean that the word "transmission" was left out on the ground that experiments in transmission are carried out already?

Mr. Johnston: That is what is argued.

Mr. Stewart: If that is the considered view, of course that is the end of it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 14, line 41, after "electricity" to insert:
in the special conditions and circumstances in the North of Scotland District.

Major McCallum: I have an Amendment down about the same matter, but, with your permission, Major Milner, I will say what I have to say now and save the time of the Committee. On an earlier Clause the Minister attempted to give an assurance that certain conditions about wind power would be laid down as part of the activities of the new Board, but he was ruled out of Order by the Chair. I would like to say why the North-West and North part of the Highlands want to emphasise this matter of wind power. Hon. Members who have visited the Northern islands of Scotland will know that the terrain is such that the development of water power may be impossible. On the other hand, in islands like Tiree or Coll or some of those in the constituency of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), bordering on the Atlantic, with Atlantic gales more frequent even than breezes, it may be possible that the Board can experiment with wind power and perhaps be able to generate sufficient electrical power in those islands to furnish the islands with electricity and so save considerable expense to toe Board in making surveys and finding ways and means of adapting water power. I believe that the Secretary of State has conducted experiments of this kind in his own private way. I hope therefore that members of the Board, even though they may not know the islands as well as some of us—

Mr. Johnston: I only wanted to say to the hon. and gallant Member that his Amendment is unnecessary. 4-Power is implied in Clause 25 to enable the Board to conduct experiments in wind power. For my part, I agree with him entirely as to the absolute importance of these experiments being conducted. I happen to know, from some experiments I have conducted myself, that it is possible to light a small cottage by wind power. I


happen to know also that there are certain organisations in England which are willing to sell plant when the war is over at a very cheap price. Of course, there are some experiments still to be conducted about how to prevent overcharging of batteries and how prevailing winds can have their special force abated. All these matters are vital to certain parts of the Highlands.

Mr. Leslie: And Islands.

Mr. Johnston: And Islands, of course. It is obvious that there are parts of the Highlands and Islands where hydro-electricity will not be available for a good many years to come; where, indeed, wind-driven electricity might be a much cheaper proposition. For those reasons I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member need not move his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out line 42 and to add "they may think fit."
This is a small point. The Clause enables the Board to carry out experiments, but is it not remarkable that this Board, which will be composed of very remarkable people, cannot carry out these experiments in wind power without coming up to Westminster and asking whether they can do so? The Board should be left to do this experimenting in the way they think fit. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me for once that this is bureaucracy gone a little mad.

Mr. Johnston: There is not very much in this matter, and theoretically, what the hon. Gentleman says is probably correct. I would endeavour to enlighten him as to the varied interests that have been struggling in this matter. There are the interests which say, "Please do not conduct any experiments at all, because you will incur expense, which will mean less money for other areas and fat the authorised undertakers." We have had to steer very carefully in these matters. We were advised that on these technical matters the Electricity Commissioners have very considerable experience and information which they will readily make available to the new Hydro Board. I do not think there is very much in the matter either way, but I am sure that it will

placate other sections if the words proposed by the hon. Member are not put in.

Mr. Stewart: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me one Amendment?

Mr. Buchanan: The Board will be composed of men of common sense. Members of the Government are constantly asking that the Board should have some liberty in these matters. Let us give them some kind of freedom in the way suggested that there is not much in it. the Board might feel a little tied them clown in this matter. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Johnston: If it is the general wish of the Committee, including my hon. Friend—

Sir A. Gridley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston: —well, the overwhelming wish, shall I say, that the Amendment should be accepted, I willingly accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. Gridley: I am sorry, but I want to see this Clause out of the Bill altogether. Far be it from me to wish to rob Scotland of anything they may get out of wind power. I can see the Minister of Fuel and Power beginning to look rather relieved if it is suggested that wind power might be developed on a large scale, but I think it is outside practical politics. The reason why I am asking the Committee to leave out the Clause is that all necessary powers exist in present legislation. The Electricity Commissioners already have power, under Section 13 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, to carry out experiments themselves or through undertakers, of which this Board will be one, but—and this is the important point—the Commissioners have to get the approval of their Minister, now the Minister of Fuel and Power, before any expenditure can be authorised. In other words, they have to submit an estimate of expenditure and get Ministerial approval. The difference here is that the Commissioners will be free to spend anything they like without having to get the consent of any Minister. May I point out to the Committee that if it


be the fact that all necessary powers are in the Commissioners' hands, subject to the financial approval of the Minister, no additional powers are wanted? The only effect of this Clause is to enable the Commissioners to authorise the Board to spend what money they like. Heaven knows we have enough research stations and experimental stations in the country now. The complaint is lack of co-ordination between them. Are we going to add to the facilities that already exist? It is quite unnecessary, and I ask the Government to take out the Clause.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Draft of Order in Council to be laid before Parliament.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Lord Advocate: We want this Clause omitted. It has now become unnecessary, because the whole contents have been transferred to a Schedule in fulfilment of the undertaking in regard to the topics referred to in the Clause. The new Schedule which is to be moved includes adaptations and modifications of the provisions of all the Electricity Supply Acts from 1882 down to date and therefore covers the whole territory.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for existing powers as to generating stations.)

Where consent is given by the Electricity Commissioners under Section twenty-two of this Act or under Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to the establishment of a new, or the extension of an existing, generating station in the North of Scotland District by any body or person nothing in this Act shall prevent the exercise of any powers otherwise competent to that body or person, in relation to the construction or extension of the station and the carrying out of any other works necessary for the operation of the station.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a new Clause to achieve a very limited object. Now that we have authorised in certain Clauses the Electricity Commissioners to consent to persons other than the Board putting up new generating stations, there might be thought to be some conflict between those Clauses of the Bill and the earlier part of the Bill which gives the Board monopoly powers with regard to development. In order to prevent there being any misapprehension here, I think it right to provide in this new Clause that once a consent has been obtained under the Bill to put up any new works nothing else in the Act is to take away from the general power of that consent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(As to applications for Special Orders.)

Nothing in this Act or any scheme made thereunder shall prejudice the application by any body, company or other person for a Special Order made under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, for power to supply electricity in any part of the North of Scotland District which at the date of the application does not form part of the area of a distribution scheme made under this Act or the area of supply of an authorised undertaker.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under the Bill as it stands the Board will indicate generally what areas are to be exploited, and that will show what areas are not going to be exploited within a measurable term of years. This Clause is to deal with the position of areas which are not likely to be exploited. Take Stromness as an example. I suggest that when such an area as that knows that it is not going to be included in the area supplied by the new Board it should have the right to apply for a Special Order empowering it to generate its own electricity. If you like, that Order might be made for a limited period of time. It will be extremely unfortunate for certain parts of the Highlands, and particularly the Islands, if they may not apply for an Order to supply electricity. I want them to continue in possession of the full rights which they now enjoy in that respect until the Board is ready to supply them.

The Lord Advocate: I do not think that there is likely to be any demand by any local authority to set up some new organisation of its own. My hon. Friend will remember that it is hoped that the new Board will have considerable revenues as well as a large organisation which will enable it to start distribution in new areas on easier terms than a new organisation with a small capital could hope to achieve. If the new Board does its duty and has anything like the success which is anticipated, that new Board ought to undertake these distribution schemes if localities apply for them and if conditions are reasonably favourable. If conditions are not reasonably favourable, then it is unlikely that the locality would itself want to distribute. Therefore, I think the Clause is really unnecessary. May I add that while the Bill in its present form prevents anyone else than the Board generating electricity, it does not prevent other people from distributing electricity supplied by the Board. As I understand it, the present position is this: Supposing the Board have electricity available for distribution in a certain area which has not yet been tapped, and supposing the inhabitants say they would rather have a small local authority scheme instead of the Board as distributors, there is nothing to prevent the local inhabitants from doing it in that way. I thing it is very unlikely that they would want to do that. It is more likely that the Board would do the whole business from generation through transmission right down to local distributio. Therefore, I suggest that the Clause which the hon. Member has moved is at least unnecessary, and I will go further and say that it is rather undesirable.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I give a direct case? The Town Council of Stromness before the war contemplated applying for a Special Order. It is most unlikely, I should say, that Stromness will be covered by the scheme of the Board for some years ahead. If that turns out to be the case, and the scheme put forward by the Board shows that Stromness is to be excluded, is it really to be said that Stromness, which had that intention before the war, is to be no longer able to carry it out?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend, I think, has forgotten the position in reference to isolated areas. If Stromness is away from any network of electricity, it

is certainly an isolated area and is entitled to treatment among the high priority customers. I think it much more likely that if Stromness wants a supply and is ripe for development, the Board would do the job as an isolated scheme rather than leave it to Stromness to do it itself.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Costs of standardisation of frequency.)

After the date of the passing of this Act any authorised undertaker within the North of Scotland District who prior to that date had not received a supply of electricity directly or indirectly from the Central Electricity Board shall cease to be under any liability to make contribution towards any sums paid by the Electricity Commissioners to that Board pursuant to Sub-section (3) of Section nine of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with a very simple point. When the Central Electricity Board set about the standardisation of frequency the expenditure of a great deal of money was involved. The Board paid it and are getting the money returned through payments by various undertakings. That is all right generally in practice and in theory, but in some parts of Scotland the people who are to pay this cost are at an obvious disadvantage. They will get no advantage, and it seems wrong to ask them to go on paying. Therefore I think we might make the slight alteration I suggest.

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid that it would hardly be possible to deal with this matter in this Bill. The position is that, rightly o wrongly, Parliament in 1926 decided that the very considerable expense of standardisation of frequency and so on in various areas should be spread over the whole country and should not be borne by the precise areas where the standardisation was necessary. Therefore, there were many areas other than those in the Highlands which got no direct benefit, although they had to contribute to this cost of standardisation. It is not as though the expenditure was something not yet incurred. The money has been spent, and the question is, Who is to pay it? If we release various authorities in


the North of Scotland from their obligations, the only result will be that that money has to be added to the burdens of other authorities in other parts of the country. I do not think it is altogether just to use the occurrence of this Bill as a reason for taking debts already incurred off the shoulders of certain authorities in the North and putting them on other authorities in the South. Therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Electricity Commissioners to state reasons for decisions.)

Whenever under this Act the Electricity Commissioners give or withhold any consent or approval or determine any question or issue they shall state the reasons for their decision and whenever they make any decision which involves a question or issue of law they shall state a case for the opinion of the Court of Session in Scotland.—(Mr. Henderson Stewart.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think I can state briefly the reason for proposing this Clause. The Committee, having gone through this long Bill, will realise that the Commissioners are going to give or withhold consent or approval many times. They will frequently—far too frequently—have to determine questions or issues which will arise. Very often it will be a decision on the question of price, and issues of great importance, involving large sums of money will arise. There is scarcely anybody in the electricity industry who does not feel aggrieved at the present state of the law. Time after time in recent years the Electricity Commissioners have made decisions involving millions of pounds and the law at present says that the Electricity Commissioners shall decide an issue of that kind. In this case there is no right of appeal. The only law in this matter is the law of the Electricity Commissioners.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that this is an important issue. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the industry in England and I am certain that it will cause immense dissatisfaction throughout Scotland if there is not some

way in which the decision of the Electricity Commissioners in London can be appealed against before some other authority. That appeal can only be made if the Electricity Commissioners state the ground for their decision. In Scottish law the sheriff states what he has found in fact and then what he has found in law. If you want to appeal you cannot raise the question on what he has decided in fact but on what he has decided in law. That is what I am asking here. The Electricity Commissioners, when they decide the issues, should state openly what they have found and how they have arrived at their decision.

Mr. Buchanan: The sheriff is a legal authority. You can appeal against him on the grounds of law, but his finding on fact is not subject to appeal. The Commissioners are not legal authorities and you are asking a non-legal body to state what are the facts and what is the law.

Mr. Stewart: The interruption of the hon. Gentleman serves greatly to strengthen my case. I was coming to that. It is precisely because the Electricity Commissioners are not lawyers that I object so much to the present state of things. They have to exercise a judicial function. If the hon. Member will look at the Act of 1921 and previous Electricity Acts he will see that the Electricity Commission has two functions, (1) administrative, (2) judicial. It is the judicial function which they are constantly being asked to perform and they perform it completely in the dark. They have no qualifications to act as judges.

Mr. Buchanan: I did not say that at all. All I was saying was that they are not a legal body; they are not lawyers. A sheriff is a competent legal authority and he decides on the facts and his judgment can be appealed against only on grounds of law. The Electricity Commissioners simply judge on the facts and not on law.

Mr. Stewart: That is not quite so. In practice the Electricity Commissioners have to consider questions of fact and of law and very often questions of mixed fact and law. I will refer to a case in point. If the hon. Member will look at Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of 1926, he will see that it is laid down that questions of price have to be decided on which, clearly, a matter of law arises. If he


and I had a dispute as to what should be paid, it would be a matter of law to decide it. In this case the Electricity Commissioners, as it were, are the sheriff, and they have, under the Act of 1926, to perform the functions of a sheriff. It is because we have no way of discovering how they arrive at their decision in law, that we object, and all that I am asking is that it should be stated when they decide, upon what grounds they have reached their decision. The Highlands are so nationalist in their view that there will be the devil to pay if the Electricity Commissioners are to decide these matters without any right of anneal beyond them, and I warn my right hon. Friend that that will be a dangerous situation.

Sir H. Williams: I would like to say a few words in support of the proposed new Clause. As I said earlier, I am not so much impressed by the quality of the Electricity Commissioners as are certain other people, and if they give a decision they should say why. If there is no appeal in the strict sense, there may be an indirect appeal in the sense that you can make an appeal to the Minister and through him the decision of the Commissioners might be altered. Strictly speaking, however, I do not think that the Minister has any power to over-rule them. Clause 12 (2, e) refers to:
any other payment which the Board are authorised to make and which ought in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners to be spread over a term of years.
Here is something on which the Electricity Commission is asked to give an opinion. When it expresses an opinion you are not entitled to examine its state of mind—even if it has a mind, and sometimes a collective mind does not exist anyhow. But if that opinion has laid it down that certain payments are to be spread over a number of years and they have a substantial influence on the cost of electricity, then those who may be affected ought to know why the Commission arrived at its decision. It is not unreasonable to ask that when the Electricity Commissioners arrive at a decision they should give their reason. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said the Commissioners are not a legal body performing judicial functions. They are performing administrative functions but many of their decisions are at least quasijudicial. Their proceedings take the character of legal proceedings, and it is

only right that, if they come to a decision involving, directly or indirectly, the law and the interpretation of the law, there ought to be an opportunity for their decision to be challenged in the courts. The more frequently you can make semi-judicial powers challengeable in the courts the more frequently are the decisions likely to be right. The greatest Corrective to anybody who makes decision, is that his decision should be open to appeal. Nobody likes his decision to be reversed on appeal. Every judge of the High Court is more careful because there is a Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal is more careful because there is an ultimate appeal to another place.

Mr. Buchanan: But there is no appeal against a decision of another place.

Sir H. Williams: You have to come to the end of the rope some time. There is a final appeal in a sense, because, if such a decision offends our general sense of what the law ought to be, then Parliament changes the law. That is the ultimate appeal in certain cases. That generally happens when the Inland Revenue loses a case; opportunity is taken in the next Finance Bill to block the loopholes. This Bill is going to cause a great deal of satisfaction in municipal circles in Scotland. The Commissioners live in premises opening on to the courtyard of the Savoy Hotel and I can see deputations coming from Scottish municipalities to interview the Commissioners, owing to the very pleasant site on which they have their offices. The proposed Clause asks for something which is essentially reasonable. If the Secretary of State does not like the wording I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no objection to redrafting the Clause provided the principle embodied in it is preserved. I ask whoever is to reply to give most favourable consideration to this new Clause.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) will not press his Clause on the Committee. I can think of nothing more hampering to the work of the Board than that there should be an appeal to the Court of Session at every stage—and there are many stages, as he said—where the Electricity Commissioners issue a decision. I am aware that the Clause, as suggested, would refer only to decisions on matters


of law but no one knows better than my hon. Friend how easy it is, even if a matter is stated in the form of a statement or a decision of fact, to maintain that it involves in some way a question of law. Accordingly, at every stage at which the Electricity Commissioners issue a decision, there would be an appeal to the Court of Session, and nobody knows when the Board would get on with its work at all. While the Clause would not be welcomed from that point of view, it would certainly be very welcome to the legal profession, and if I were speaking on their behalf I would welcome it. But speaking on behalf of the consumers of electricity, I fear that we must resist the incorporation of this Clause in the Bill, and I would ask my hon. Friend, for these reasons, to withdraw it.
There is one more reason which I should state. It would make the North of Scotland Board quite anomalous in this respect. All over the country, both in Scotland and south of the Border, the Electricity Commissioners have the duty of issuing decisions and in no case up to now have they been bound to state the reason for their decision. They have not been hampered, nor have the corresponding boards been hampered by an appeal either to the Court of Session or to the High Court in England. This would place the North of Scotland in a position of anomaly and the Board in the North of Scotland would be hampered as no other board in the country is hampered. I accordingly invite my hon. Friend not to press the Clause.

Sir H. Williams: The Solicitor-General has devoted all his speech to the legal side. Suppose he considers the new Clause up to the word "decision." He gives no reason why the Commissioners should not say the grounds on which they have come to an opinion, except that it has not been the practice to do so in the past. Because it has not been considered virtuous to do a thing in the past, is no reason why it should not be done in future, even in the North of Scotland. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to give the reasons why it is undesirable that the Electricity Commissioners should state how they arrive at their decisions.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If there is to be no appeal against a decision,

then it does not much matter whether they state the reasons or not, but probably the best answer to my hon. Friend is that what is suggested ought to be done if at all in the form of a general amendment of the law, applied all over the country. This Board ought not to be placed in a peculiar position.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The real difficulty is this: There is a dispute, between one undertaker and another. It has to be settled by the Electricity Commissioners. What we want is to ensure that the two disputants shall be able to discover whether the Commissioners have or have not misdirected themselves on questions of law. There have been a few cases in which the Electricity Commissioners have been found to have misdirected themselves in law. When such a case has been discovered and taken to the court there has been, as the Committee knows, an overturning of the Commissioners' decision. The difficulty is that when they do not state the grounds for their decision, you can never bring a case to the courts. That is undemocratic and not right and on the widest grounds of public morale and justice some change ought to be made.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Supply of electricity.)

After the passing of this Act, the Board may not supply electricity to any works or factory to be erected in the North of Scotland District unless the erection of the works or factory has been approved—

(a) by any statutory authority which may be established to regulate town and country planning in Scotland; or
(b) until such authority is established by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Bossom.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bossom: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is to give the Minister control over the erection of factories which will be attracted to the Highlands area as the result of the supply of electricity that will be forthcoming under this scheme. The Minister has told us that he has control over any construction work that will be undertaken by the Board and he has given us an assurance that he will examine any such scheme that is brought before the House of Commons before a spadeful of earth is turned for


the erection of any new factory. It is suggested that the Minister should take unto himself power not to allow the Board to supply electricity to any new factory until it has been approved by any town and country planning authority that may be created. We wish the Minister to take unto himself power to see that the amenities in this part of Scotland are not destroyed by new factories coming in, over which to-day he has no control.

Mr. Johnston: The Government's attitude to the hon. Member's endeavour to stimulate planning in areas where planning resolutions have been adopted, is one of general welcome. During our next series of Sittings a Planning Bill will be considered for England and Wales and without arrogating to myself functions which should belong to the Leader of the House, I think I can say that immediately that Measure is well on the way to the Statute Book a Scottish Bill, applicable to Scottish conditions and Scottish law, will be introduced. I do not think there is any chance of any factories being erected before this Bill becomes law so that the purposes of the New Clause are unnecessary.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Town and Country Planning Bill which is to be introduced for Scotland will have control over these factories, because we have had such a Bill in England and Wales for the last 10 years and there has been little or no control? Will he give us an assurance that he will be able to stop undesirable factories from being erected in places where he does not want them to be erected?

Mr. Johnston: That is a tall order to spring upon me now, and I would not care to give in advance any ideas of what powers such a Bill may give me.

Mr. Sloan: You cannot put up an electric pole in my county without getting a plan passed.

Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friend's county has adopted a planning resolution. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. Bossom) is dealing with areas in Scotland which have not adopted such resolutions. As the Committee is aware, up to now local authorities have only voluntarily adopted planning resolutions.

Mr. John Dugdale: May we have an assurance that there will not be a gap between the time at which this Bill is passed and the time at which a Town and Country Planning Bill becomes applicable to Scotland, otherwise factories may get advance permission which it will be impossible to withdraw afterwards?

Mr. Johnston: I think it would be a fair guess to say that there is no chance of any factory being erected in the North of Scotland prior to the introduction of such a Bill.

Mr. Bossom: On the Minister's assurance that a Town and Country Planning Bill for Scotland will be brought in shortly after the passing of this Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and proceedings of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, to leave out "the deputy-chairman."
I hope the Government will feel able to accept this Amendment on account of the recommendation contained in Lord Cooper's report. Without being disrespectful to whoever may be appointed chairman of the new Hydro-Electric Board, I think that the success of any schemes inaugurated by the Board and approved by this House must depend, in the main, upon the deputy-chairman and his personality and capacity. He will really be the executive officer of the Board and it is very important that the other members should have complete reliance on the executive officer. If I may take an analogy from another walk of life to which I am more accustomed I may compare the position of the new deputy-chairman of the Board to that of an executive officer of a newly commissioned ship. When a ship is newly commissioned it is not so much the captain who is important—although the ultimate responsibility rests with him—as his first commander or first lieutenant, who has to look after the training and work of the crew and get things in working order generally. When ships are newly com-


missioned it is customary for the Admiralty to let the captain have some considerable say in the appointment of his executive officer. I, therefore, ask that the Government should allow the Board to have some say in the selection of their deputy-chairman.

The Lord Advocate: There is undoubtedly some force in the argument put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend, but we have to remember that there is a large body of opinion which desires the Secretary of State to have the largest amount of responsibility to this House for the actions of this Board, compatible with the reasonable freedom of the Board to carry on their day-to-day activities, The Secretary of State has, in fact, a larger responsibility to this House and one which can be more easily brought home to him if he has in his hands the appointment of the key men of the whole structure. I quite agree that in the circumstances here the deputy-chairman is the key man. If you allow somebody other than the Secretary of State to appoint the key man then the Secretary of State cannot fairly be held responsible for what happens, in the initial stages, at least, of the life of this Board. So, although we recognise the force of the argument in favour of the Amendment, we think that, on balance, it is better to leave the Bill as it stands.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I do not altogether agree with the Lord Advocate but I will not press the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to move the second of his Amendments to this Schedule?

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: No.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I move my Amendment, in page 16, line 7, after "Board," to insert:
(three of whom including the chairman shall be selected for practical, commercial and wide business experience, including in the case of the deputy chairman experience of electrical supply)

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not calling the hon. Member's Amendment.

Major McCallum: I beg to move, in page 16, line 7, at the end, to insert:

of whom one member shall be a person possessing intimate knowledge of the Highland area and the Highland conditions.
In our anxiety to get this Bill into law, some of my hon. Friends and myself have withdrawn some Amendments but this is an Amendment which we feel deals with one of the most important matters in the whole Bill. We have listened to speeches telling us what was to be done in the Highlands. Various suggestions have been made and we would like an assurance from the Minister that, included in the membership of this Board, shall be a person having intimate knowledge of Highland conditions. Part of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) which you Mr. Williams, decided not to call, contained just what we fear. It says:
three of whom including the chairman shall be selected for practical, commercial and wide business experience, …
There is not a word in that Amendment about experience or intimate knowledge of the Highlands. It is true the Secretary of State has discussed this matter with a good many authorities in the Highlands and has given the assurance that there will be somebody on the Board who will know something about Highland matters but, as has been pointed out before, it is quite possible that a new Secretary of State may not feel so kindly intentioned to the Highlands as the present Minister. Therefore, may I ask that care shall be taken, when this Board is selected, that one member shall have an intimate knowledge of the Highland area and Highland conditions? We do not ask that he shall be a Highlander to the fourth generation, or shall live all the time in the Highlands, but we are very frightened of the type of person to whom the right hon. Gentleman made reference on the Second Reading whose interest in the Highlands extends from 12th August to 15th October.

Mr. Snadden: I support the Amendment. All we are asking is that someone should be appointed who is conversant with Highland conditions, and will therefore command the complete confidence of people living in the Highlands.

Sir H. Williams: I should like to oppose this. I think it is wrong in principle, and it is a very dangerous idea. I remember


two or three years ago a Home Secretary who was a Scotsman and a Minister of Agriculture who was a Scotsman, and the present Minister and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health are both Scottish Members. If you apply the principle that because you have a job in the Highlands you have to have a Highlander on it, it is a very dangerous principle for Scotsman to adopt. They will lose more on the swings than they will gain on the roundabouts if the English people become self-conscious. Nothing could be more detrimental than for the Scottish people to suffer from an inferiority complex and say that every Scottish office should be held by a Scotsman.

Mr. Buchanan: I am totally at variance with the hon. Member opposite, for many reasons, The most competent Minister of Health that I have known in my experience was a native of Glasgow and a representative of a Glasgow constituency. It is not enough if the only qualification this representative needs is that he must know something of the Highlands. The people who know London best are those who come as visitors from time to time. I have been astonished at times to find how little many natives of London know of their native city. In running an electricity job, the first thing is to know something about the industry, its make-up, and how to handle the people who will run it. If I wanted to narrow down the choice of men, I should say one of the first things was to know how to deal with labour problems. This Board is not just confined to the Highlands. It is possible to get people who know something of the Highlands and also—

Major McCallum: The hon. Member is saying exactly what we want. We are not asking that this official shall be a Highlander by birth, but that he shall know the Highlands.

Mr. Buchanan: Does it say that he must know something about electricity?

Major McCallum: It is assumed that anyone appointed to the Board will know something about electricity.

Mr. Buchanan: And it may be assumed that he will know something about the Highlands as well. I would sooner take the risk of a man who did not know the Highlands but knew electricity from

beginning to end than vice versa. Let those who are making the choice have full liberty to pick the best men with regard to electricity, and I am certain they will also be capable of picking people who have some knowledge of the requirements of the Highlands and of Scotland in general.

Mr. Boothby: I should like to ask my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to define exactly what he means by the Highlands. No one pretends that Aberdeenshire is not going to be vitally affected by the Bill. Will he tell me whether Aberdeenshire is in the Highlands or not? I believe technically it is not. If the Amendment is carried, I shall have to try to move an Amendment of my own to say that someone who represents the interest of the North-East of Scotland should also be put on, and no doubt others will carry the question still further. On the whole, I am strongly opposed to regional appointments of this character, and I hope very much that the Lord Advocate will not accept the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: Two considerations weigh with me in addition to those that have been mentioned. One is that, if you have a very small Board, it is very undesirable to start defining the qualifications, because it will not be easy to get a good working team if you start from that angle. Of course, the Secretary of State will bear in mind that a great number of Members think that someone knowing the Highlands ought to be on the Board, but suppose you label one particular member as the Highland member, and he is in a permanent minority of one. Is it not very much better to assume that more than one of those who will be selected will know something about the Highlands, though that may not be their primary qualification? It is better not to tie ourselves to one person appointed as a Highland member, but to weigh up each possible name, having in view all the desirable qualifications, and see just how many of those qualifications he possesses.

Major McCallum: I should like to ask hon. Members opposite to recall certain industrial organisations which started in the North of Scotland area with a great flourish of trumpets and were going to bring about the salvation of the Outer Islands.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I do not think we can possibly go into other organisations that exist in the Highlands.

Major McCallum: I only wanted to say that there is a danger of the North of Scotland aspect being overlooked by a Board one section of whose duties is to provide electricity. In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 16, line 12, at the end, to insert:
3. A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of the Board if he is an undischarged bankrupt or if he has granted a trust deed for behoof of creditors, or entered into a composition contract.
The purpose of this is to ensure that any person who is bankrupt or has granted a trust deed for behoof of creditors should be disqualified. We did not put it in to begin with because we did not think it a very likely eventuality which needed to be provided against, but representations have been made that it ought to be in, and we have given effect to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page i6, line 16, after "term," to insert:
not less than five years nor longer than ten years as may be determined by the Ministers before his appointment.
This is to extend the period during which members of the Board may sit. The Schedule leaves the question of the term of office entirely to the Minister. It is hardly fair to ask responsible people to undertake duties of this character unless they feel some sense of security in the length of time they are likely to serve. They are probably giving up some other important activity for it. Perhaps they are doing it because they believe it to be a public duty. Suddenly, after a very short period, their services may be dispensed with. My object is to give them at least a decent period of time in office, and I think they will be more efficient at the end of it than at the beginning.

The Lord Advocate: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the fullest assurance that the Government realise the importance of a Board which will be able to have a continuous policy, but we do not want to tie our hands with regard to each and all of the members of the Board,

because, particularly in war-time, when the number of people available may be more limited than in ordinary times, it may be that someone who would be a very good member to start the Board, will not be able to guarantee five, still less 10, years' service. Undoubtedly there is no intention of having a short-term Board. We want to keep our hands free, and there may be some cases where a shorter term than five years is appropriate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, after "vacant," to insert:
and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit.
This is a very small point, but it does seem to me that when an office is vacant the public should know about it, and it is merely to suggest that when an office becomes vacant some definite notification for those interested should be insisted upon that I move the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: It is obviously a proper provision that a vacancy should be notified if that vacancy is to be filled by inviting applications. But it is not thought that in a matter of this kind the right way to proceed is to invite applications from people who would like to be members of the Board. We do not always get the right kind of applicant in this way. We would prefer therefore to select and not to invite people to apply, and if we are to do the selecting, there is not the same need to make public the fact that there is a vacancy.

Major Lloyd: With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 17, line 16, after "Board," to insert "or their representatives."
This is merely to provide for the case where there may be a balance of salary or other allowance due to the representative of the official or wage-earner of the Board.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, after "allowances," to insert "and superannuation allowances and gratuities."


This is merely to provide for the case where, in addition to allowances paid to officials, there may be superannuation allowances or gratuities.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 17, line 18, to leave out paragraph 14, and to insert:
14. The Board may adopt the, provisions of Part 1 of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937, and, if they do so, that Act shall have effect in relation to the Board as if they were a local authority required to maintain a superannuation fund under Part 1 of that Act, and, in relation to any employee of the Board, as if the Board were a local authority within the meaning of that Act, not being either a local authority specified in Part 1 of the First Schedule thereto or a local Act authority within the meaning of that Act.
This Amendment is designed to enable the Board to adopt the provisions of Part 1 of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937, and if they do that then the officials and employees of the Board will be in the same position, so far as superannuation is concerned, as all the other local government employees in Scotland, and that seems to the Government to be a desirable position. For one thing, it will enable the ready exchange of employees from a local authority to the Board or from the Board to a local authority, and in other ways we think it would be an advantage.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could my hon. and learned Friend tell me whether it is the intention to leave the Board free to adopt some other method of superannuation? For example, the Central Electricity Board has a scheme which I think is better than this scheme from the point of view of the employees. If the hon. and learned Member can give me an assurance that the Board will be able to adopt what scheme it likes, then I will agree to this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand that to be the position. The Board has the option either to adopt the Local Government Act superannuation scheme, or another one which might be an improvement upon that, but it is not compulsory.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and Modifications of Lands Clauses Acts and of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, to leave, out:
to the sale of superfluous land and.
The Amendment arises in this way. Under the old Lands Clauses Act under which land is acquired by authorities, if it ultimately turns out that the authority has bought too much land, then the original seller of the land has the right to get the first refusal of land being resold. In more recent times that provision has been dropped, and under the Bill as it stands there was no such right of preemption. But examination of the position convinced us that the position of the Highlands area is very different from what it is in a large town where there are very numerous holders of land, or even in a more closely settled country district. We thought it right in the particular circumstances in which large tracts of land are necessarily under the ownership of the same person that this right of pre-emption should operate there.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 19, line 8, to leave out from "than," to "days," in line 9, and to insert "seven."
The Bill as it stands provides for only three days' notice to go on to land which the Board has to enter, and we think that is not long enough. We wish accordingly to put in "not less than seven" to enable the Board to give a good deal more notice in circumstances where that is appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 19, line 40, after "thing," to insert:
which has been or which may at any time be.
This Amendment can be explained in a very few words. Paragraph 6 as it stands provides that in assessing compensation for land which is acquired by the Board no account is to be taken of anything done by the Board
in the exercise of their powers under Subsection (4) of Section 8 of this Act,
which gives them powers to construct various works. Evidently, as the paragraph


stands, it applies only to things which have been done up to the time when the compensation is assessed. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that in assessing compensation no account shall be taken of the prospect of works which may be carried out by the Board. Obviously, this also ought not to affect the amount which has to be paid in compensation.

The Lord Advocate: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no possibility, under the present drafting, of compensation being inflated by reason of the fact that the Board might in the future put valuable works on the land. If you take together the terms of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, and the terms of this particular paragraph, I think that would become clear. But I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the last three lines of the paragraph, which say:
The value of the land shall be computed by reference to the circumstances existing at the date of the notice given. …
That plainly excludes any betterment or improvement made on the land after that date. Perhaps with that assurance my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Mr. Douglas: Would the Lord Advocate explain this? I appreciate that this cannot possibly relate to improvements which have been made on the land, but is he sure that the prospect of future improvements does not affect the valuation?

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. Member knows, special adaptability was ruled out by the 1919 Act. I really do not think there is any fear.

Mr. Douglas: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and Modifications of provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting Clauses Act, 1899.)


Part I.


Adaptations and modifications of the provisions of the Electricity (supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936.


1. The expression "the Board" means the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and for any reference in the said provisions to the Central Electricity Board there shall be substituted a reference to the Board.


2. The sections of the said Acts specified in the first column of the following Table shall be adapted and modified in the manner specified in the second column of that Table:



Adaptations and Modifications.



The Electric Lighting Act, 1882.


Section three
…
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section four
…
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section nine
…
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section twelve
…
…
Paragraph (1) of the section shall not apply to the Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Rules for ascertaining the price payable by the Central Electricity Board to the Board for electricity supplied in any year under Section 16 (2).)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, to leave out "adjusted cost of production," and to insert:
cost of production adjusted in accordance with the last foregoing paragraph.
This Amendment and those which follow have reference to the method of fixing the price of the electricity sold by the new Board to the Central Electricity Board. The method of fixing the price is very technical, but I think I can give the assurance that there is no alteration in the sense of the Schedule by reason of any of these Amendments.

Sir H. Williams: These words represent an improvement, but for the benefit of those Members of the Committee not familiar with such phrases as "adjusted cost of production," I would like to give a little warning that, however perfect they make this Schedule, a great many people will have a great many headaches on a great many occasions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 20, line 34, leave out "obtained," and insert "ascertained."

In line 40, leave out "the last mentioned," and insert "this."

In line 40, leave out "ascertained," and insert "obtained."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section fourteen
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section nineteen
…
There shall be inserted after the words "such supply" the words "or of any regulations under the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."




The Electric Lighting Act, 1888.


Section two
…
The provisions substituted for section twenty-seven of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall not apply to the. Board.


Section three
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.




The Electric Lighting Act, 1909.


Section one
…
The Section shall not apply to the Board.


Section two
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section three
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section four
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section six
…
In subsection (2) after the words "Electric Lighting Acts" there shall be inserted the words "or by the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943," and after the words "Provisional Order" there shall be inserted the words "or by any scheme approved and confirmed under the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act,1943." Subsection (3) shall not apply to the Board.


Section seven
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.




The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919.


Section eleven
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section fifteen
…
Subsection (1) shall not apply to the Board.


Section sixteen
…
There shall be inserted after the words "this Act," the words "or section eighteen of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."


Section twenty-two
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section twenty-three
…
There shall be inserted after the word "authority," where it first occurs, the words "the Board."


Section twenty-seven
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.


Section thirty-three
…
There shall be inserted after the word "Act," the words "or of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."




The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922.


Section four
…
There shall he inserted after the word "authority," wherever it occurs, the words "or the Board;" and after the word "Act," where it occurs for the second and third times, the words "or the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943"


Section six
…
There shall he inserted after the word "authority" wherever it occurs the words "or the Board."


Section eight
…
There shall be inserted after the word "Act" the words "or under section eighteen of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."


Section eleven
…
The section shall not apply to the Board.




The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926.


Section one
…
The section shall be omitted.


Section two
…
The section shall be omitted.


Section four
…
In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) the words "to be constructed or acquired by the Board" shall be omitted.


Section five
…
In subsection (2) the words "any authorised undertakers or other company or person approved by the Board of failing such authorised undertakers, company or person," the words from "but where the generating station" to "acquire the station," and the words "the authorised undertakers, company or person, or" shall be omitted.




In subsection (3) for the words from "may carry out" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "shall be deemed to have acquired it under the powers and for the purposes of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, and may carry out such extensions or alterations thereof as are required by the scheme or as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners."


Section six
…
The Section shall be omitted.


Section seven
…
In subsection (4) for the words "the tariff fixed under this Act for the supply of electricity by the Board" there shall be substituted the words "such tariff for the supply of electricity by the Board to authorised undertakers as may be fixed from time to time by the Board under subsection (1) of section ten of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."


Section nine
…
In subsection (2) for the words "this Act," there shall be substituted the words "section twelve of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943."

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This very long Schedule is the result of our labours in adapting the whole existing electricity code to the circumstances of the new Board, and I think that we have done it as shortly as ingenuity will allow it to be done. I do not profess that it is easy to understand, but I do not think any alternative method of doing it would have been any better or, indeed, as good. I move this Schedule as being the most workmanlike job the circumstances of the case permits.

Major McCallum: The proposed Schedule states that Section 14 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall not apply to the Board. Certain local authorities whom I represent do not understand why this Section should not be applied to the Board, as it was to the previous undertaking.

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid I cannot answer that question off-hand. These matters are so technical that I do not happen to remember the reason, but I will look into this point before the Report stage.

Sir H. Williams: I would ask the Committee to look at this amazing Schedule. I have not the slightest doubt that what the Lord Advocate said is true, that this is the best way of doing it, but the time has come to offer a protest against the fact that the Electricity Acts have not been consolidated. If they had been, we should not have been asked to do this perfectly dreadful thing at this moment. It is 10 years since, on the Second Reading of some Electricity Bill, I Dressed for consolidation. I lived with the Electricity Acts for eight years. I thought I knew something about them at first, but by the end of the eighth year I was convinced I knew little, so confused was I. Since

we are incorporating so many Electricity Acts, in whole or in part, in this Bill I make a personal protest against the fact that the best of them, the Act of 1936, which I sponsored as a private Member, will have no place in this Bill.

Question, "That the Schedule be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, in line 151, after "1943" to insert,
after the word 'undertaking' there shall be inserted the words 'or which have been acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking.'
The purpose of this insertion can he simply explained. Under the Fifth Schedule, lines 149 to 153, Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, are incorporated. This Section relates to the acquisition of land by the Central Electricity Board for which this new Board is substituted. The Sub-section provides that nothing in the Section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition by the Board of land held by the owners or lessees of any railway, canal, navigation dock or harbour, for the purpose of their undertaking, and so on, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, and Section II of the Act of 1922. Under Section 24 of the Act of 1909, it is provided that nothing in the Act shall enable the Electricity Commissioners, by special Order, to authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land belonging to any gas or water undertakers and used by them for the purposes of their undertaking.
The purpose of my Amendment is to bring electricity undertakers under the same provisions as other statutory undertakers. They are subject under statute to limitations as to the land they may acquire, and, therefore, it would create an extraordinary position if the Board were enabled to override the powers given


to such undertakers. Surely there can be no justification for differentiating between electricity undertakings and gas and water undertakings, or the other public services referred to. If it will strengthen the Government's hands to have precedents in support of my Amendment, I would refer them to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, Section 3, and the Local Government Act, 1933 Section 179 (3).

The Lord Advocate: In drafting this Bill we have gone as far as possible on the lines of not altering general statutory provisions, so as to make a difference between the Highlands area and the rest of the country. We have made alterations only where we thought there was good reason for them. We have been unable to find any sufficiently good reason to justify putting statutory undertakers in the North of Scotland in a different position from those in the rest of Great Britain. What is the injury which my hon. Friend apprehends? It can only arise out of a constructional scheme, because what he wants to prevent is the acquisition of land or an interest in land belonging to a statutory authority, and that can only be done by the new Board under a constructional scheme. Therefore, any undertaking which feels aggrieved by any proposal of the new Board to take any part of its land has the fullest opportunity of making objections, having an inquiry, if necessary, and raising the matter through any hon. Member in the House who chooses to raise it on the scheme when it lies on the Table. Is there any reason why there should be a complete prohibition of the Board taking any part of a statutory undertaker's land, however useful that land may be, however little harm it may be doing to the undertaking and however much good it may be doing to the Board? There would be a pretty heavy onus to discharge by anyone who sought to take possession of the land of an undertaker, but the door should not be closed entirely and if circumstances arise in which it is obviously the best thing for some small piece of land to be taken away from an undertaker and handed to the Board, it is permissible under the existing law, and I do not think there is so much harm in it that we Should alter it.

Sir A. Gridley: The Lord Advocate has not explained why the protection which is granted to existing undertakers, and

which prohibits the Commissioners from acquiring such land, is not to be granted here.

The Lord Advocate: I think I am right in saying that undertakers in the position which my hon. Friend has in mind, if they are in the South of Scotland or in England, do not have the protection which he seeks. If they, had his Amendment would have taken the form of incorporating some existing statutory provision, whereas it proposes to introduce some quite new words. That shows that there is no statutory provision under the electricity code at the moment which covers his case.

Sir A. Gridley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, in line 185, after "authority," to insert:
Fourth Schedule—For the words 'on an annual salary' in the Proviso there shall be substituted the words in the performance of administrative professional clerical supervisory or technical duties not being a person employed by way of manual labour on a weekly or less than a weekly Wage" 
This Amendment deals with the assessment of compensation to officers and servants of undertakings who may be deprived of their employment by the amalgamation or transfer of undertakings under this Bill. The Amendment calls for a few words of explanation. The method of assessment of compensation in these cases is partly laid down in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1926. The Committee will observe that my Amendment proposes that the Fourth Schedule of that Act shall apply to this Bill subject to two modifications. With the leave of the Committee I propose to move those two modifications separately. First, I move that the Fourth Schedule should have application to this Bill subject to the modification that for the words "on an annual salary" there shall be substituted the words:
In the performance of administrative, professional, clerical, supervisory or technical duties not being a person employed by way of manual labour at a weekly wage.
I shall move the second modification separately. With regard to the proposed


first modification, the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1926 provides that the compensation which shall be payable to an employee who is employed on an annual salary shall be assessed in a certain way. The expression "on an annual salary" has been found to give rise to difficulty in certain cases, and therefore my Amendment proposes to substitute words which will make clear who the persons are to whom that part of the Fourth Schedule applies.

The Lord Advocate: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. It is unfortunately the fact that somewhat unexpected meaning was attached to "on an annual salary" in a certain case, and it is therefore very desirable that any such difficulties should be avoided in the future. Therefore, with some reluctance, we feel justified in agreeing to put in four lines in place of four wards.

Mr. Buchanan: I have not given this matter the thought that I might have done, but a point that at once rises to my mind is that this is a concession for a chap on an annual wage, called in ordinary parlance "a staff employee," which is not being given to a man who is not on the staff. In the event of employees becoming redundant owing to amalgamation, the benefits of this Amendment would be confined to the salaried staff.

Mr. Hutchinson: My hon. Friend will find the full provisions for the payment of compensation in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1926. The Schedule deals with other classes of persons who are entitled to be paid compensation for loss of office, but their compensation is assessed in a manner which is slightly different from the manner in which the compensation is assessed for a person engaged on an annual salary. Both classes are entitled to be paid compensation for loss of their employment.

Mr. Buchanan: My point is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has put down an Amendment which seeks to safeguard the rights of salaried people but makes no mention of the rights of those who are non-salaried employees. What is the reason for an Amendment which seems to strengthen the rights of the salaried workers while leaving out the others? The hon. and learned Gentleman has given an answer which I cannot follow.

I was a Member at the time the Act of 1926 was passed, and I remember the Debates upon it. The hon. and learned Member tells me the rights are safeguarded by the Act of 1926. If that be true, the rights of the salaried people are safeguarded, and so why have an Amendment only for the salaried workers?

The Lord Advocate: I have before me the Act of 1926, and I think the matter is quite simple once you have the Act in front of you. There is a general provision that compensation shall be such as the referee or the Board of referees may award, and then there is a proviso that where loss of employment is involved the compensation in the case of an officer employed at an annual salary shall be on a different basis, namely, on the basis of what was the rule in the Civil Service at a certain date. Accordingly, under the Act of 1926 there are two different scales operating, according to whether a man was on an annual salary or was not. As my hon. and learned Friend has said in moving his Amendment, a somewhat curious meaning was attached to "an annual salary," and accordingly the division between the two types of compensation did not fall where it had been expected to fall. Some people who ought to have been on one side of the line turned out to be on the other side. The purpose of the Amendment is to restore the dividing line between the two types of compensation to where it was always intended it should be, but from which it was displaced by an interpretation of the courts in a particular case.

Mr. Buchanan: What we are doing is to restore what was thought to be the compensation under the Act of 1926 for those covered by this Bill while leaving people covered by the Act of 1926 in the position in which we did not intend them to be. The Act of 1926 is not being amended. It seems to me that if an amendment has to be made this is the wrong way to do it. The amendment ought not to be made on the side issue of a hydro-electric Bill. If the wording in the Act of 1926 is wrong, according to an interpretation given in the courts, the way to put it right is by an alteration of the Act of 1926. We ought not to foist the alteration on to a hydro-electric Bill. That is my view, and I think it should be the Lord Advocate's view. I do not think this is quite the fair method of doing it.

The Lord Advocate: Generally speaking, I think, the hon. Member is quite right, but, as I said a few minutes ago, we did decide to alter the general law where there was a strong case for it. We tried to keep the Amendments of the general law as few as possible, but we thought that this point had a strong case for it. Accordingly, in the interests of this class of people, I think we were right to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, after the words last inserted, to insert:
There shall be inserted after the words 'during the war' in the Proviso the words 'of 1914 to 1918 or during the period beginning with the first day of September, 1939, and ending with such day as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency) Powers Act, 1939, came to an end.'
This is the second part of my Amendment, and it calls for some brief explanation. The Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1926 provides that officers or servants who were absent from their employment during the war might, in an assessment as to compensation, include their period of service during the war as though it had been service in the undertaking. The expression "during the war" applies and is restricted to the war of 1914–18. The purpose of my Amendment is to extend that provision to the present war so that a person deprived of employment in consequence of an amalgamation or transfer under the Bill who has been absent from his employment on service during this war, will be entitled to count his years of service as part of the service in respect of which he is entitled to compensation under the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: I regret to say that the same considerations do not apply here as in the other case. We think there is no sufficient case for accepting this Amendment. It is clear that the position of those who have gone on war service in regard to superannuation will have to be cleared up in some general way at the end of the war. We agreed to accept the last Amendment because it was not clear that this position would be cleared up in any reasonable time, but the present case is so outstanding that it is unthinkable that the problem will not be promptly

tackled after the end of the war. We do not want to establish a precedent in a small Bill of this kind which might be a little embarrassing when the general problem comes to be considered.

Mr. Hutchinson: I appreciate the reason which has led to the rejection of the Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend has not given an assurance, and it is not possible that he could, that this matter will be dealt with. No doubt it will. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Inquiries.)

1. The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to hold the inquiry and to report thereon to him.
2. The person appointed to hold the inquiry shall notify the Board and any person who has lodged objections to the scheme which is the subject of the inquiry, and shall publish in such newspaper or newspapers as the Secretary of State may direct a notice, of the time when and the place where the inquiry is to be held.
3. Except with the sanction of the person appointed to hold the inquiry no person other than the Board or a person who has lodged objections to the scheme which is the subject of the inquiry shall be entitled to appear or to be represented at the inquiry.
4. The person appointed to hold the inquiry may, on the motion of any party thereto, or of his own motion, require any person by notice in writing—

(a) to attend at the time and place set forth in the notice to give evidence or to produce any books or documents in his custody or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry; or
(b) to furnish within such reasonable period as is specified in the notice such information relating to any matter in question at the inquiry as the person appointed to hold the inquiry may think fit and as the person so required is able to furnish.

Provided that—

(i) no person shall be required in obedience to such a notice to attend at any place which is more than ten miles from the place where he resides unless the necessary expenses are paid or tendered to him; and
(ii) such a notice shall not require the production of plans or the furnishing of particulars prepared before the passing of this Act for the purposes of any scheme for the development of water power resources in the North of Scotland District.


5. The person appointed to hold the inquiry may administer oaths and examine witnesses


on oath and may accept, in lieu of evidence on oath by any person, a statement in writing by that person.
6. The inquiry shall be held in public.
7. Any person who refuses or wilfully neglects to attend in obedience to a notice issued under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, or who wilfully alters, suppresses, conceals, destroys, or refuses to produce any book or document which he may be required to produce by any such notice, or who refuses or wilfully neglects to comply with any requirement under paragraph 4 of this Schedule of the person appointed to hold the inquiry shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.
8. The Secretary of State shall communicate to each party to the inquiry, the recommendations made by the person appointed to hold it.
9. The expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the inquiry (including such reasonable sum as the Secretary of State may determine for the services of the person appointed to hold the inquiry) shall be paid by the parties to the inquiry as the Secretary of State may order.
10. The Secretary of State may make orders as to the expenses incurred by the parties to the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.
11. Any order by the Secretary of State under paragraph nine or paragraph ten of this Schedule requiring any party to pay expenses may be enforced in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time.
This is the Schedule to which I referred when I was moving the Amendment to Clause 24. It contains the code of rules which will apply to the holding of a local inquiry, when such an inquiry is ordered. It practically follows the rules which were set out in the English Statute of 1933, subject to slight modifications, to which I would draw the attention of the Committee. Both of them are in the proviso to paragraph 4. These seem fairly reasonable Amendments applicable to this particular case. Perhaps I should also draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph 10 of the Schedule. It enables the Secretary of State to make any person, who causes an inquiry or causes delay which perhaps is unwarranted, pay the expenses. One hopes that that will be a deterrent to frequent local inquiries being held.

Mr. Buchanan: I should like to ask about the expenses of persons attending inquiries, even below the limit of 10 miles.

We can assume that expenses will be paid to important witnesses who are the servants of local authorities or big companies, but I can imagine witnesses not in that fortunate position and I would like some guidance on the matter.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That point would be provided for in the ordinary way, and it is not necessary to make that a condition on which the person attends. The proviso makes it clear that if a person is more than 10 miles away he need not obey the summons to attend unless he gets his expenses offered to him. If he does attend, whether he resides more than 10 miles away or not, the parties calling him will no doubt have to pay his expenses, and that will be included in the expenses which the Secretary of State may order one or other of the parties to provide for.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 31].

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the time within which applications for assistance under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, may be made to local authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may become payable under Section eight of the said Act of 1938 by reason of any extension of the time within which applications for assistance must be made to local authorities in order that their power to give assistance under the said Act of 1938 may be exercisable.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Extension of time for applying for assistance under s. 4 of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have a question I should like to put to the Under-Secretary for Scotland. In the Second Reading Debate the hon. Gentleman used these words:
Since the Act of 1938 came into operation 381 houses have been completed with grants. Some of the houses which have been approved are under construction. It was expected that a great deal more would be done with the help Of the Act, but war conditions have greatly hindered progress. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the operation of the grants system for another five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1943; col. 1687, Vol. 387.]
It is because I could not follow the word "therefore," in other words because I could not get an explanation of the need for extension, that I want to ask a question. It would seem to be a simple point. If you ask Parliament to extend the operation of a certain Act, it means that you propose to do something with that Act. I must assume that that is so. If it is so, I must ask my hon. Friend what he is going to do, and in answering that question I feel that he must give some indication of what changes he is going to make. This Bill extends the Act which provided grants of from £160 to £200 per house. That was when houses were selling at less than £500 each. To-day, I gather the houses that are being built in Scotland for agricultural workers are costing £1,100. If the grant in 1938 for houses costing £500 was inadequate, as it was argued then, it must be wholly useless now. If my hon. Friend is to persuade me that this Bill is worth while, he must persuade me that he will not only do something with that provision but will adapt it to present circumstances. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give me an assurance on that matter. He did not do so on Second Reading.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I shall endeavour in as few words as possible to give the reason for the Clause which is now before the Committee. It is to make it possible for a local authority to continue making grants where applications are made under Part II of the Act. The Act provided that grants should be payable until July, 1943, but if this Clause is accepted, they will be payable till 1948. Applications are still coming in. That is the reason why I used the word "therefore." Applications are still coming in

from individuals to local authorities for the purpose of getting the grant provided by the present Act, which we are now seeking to amend. If the Act is not amended by the Clause now before the Committee, these grants must cease on 13th July, 1943. The whole purpose of the Clause before the Committee is merely to change the date to make it possible for these grants to continue until 1948 instead of ending on 13th July, 1943. That is the explanation for the word "therefore" which I used. Applications are still coming in and we want to enable the local authority to continue making these grants.

Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us something more detailed than this strangely reiterated sentence "Applications are still coming in"? He said that three times in his short speech. It seemed to me to suggest that there were not very many applications, but by repeating the statement three times he made them into a stage army. In the piping times of peace when these grants bore some relation to the cost of the houses, they might have been attractive to an owner who was proposing to do something in this direction. The Under-Secretary will admit, I think, that applications came to him at a very slow pace indeed. I forget what the total number was over the whole period for the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Westwood: Three hundred and eighty-one.

Mr. Maxton: I do not think we ought to include houses under construction because presumably their finance is settled. They will get their money all right whether this Act is continued or not. If we add 218 to the figure we have just heard, will 500 houses revolutionise the lives of the Scottish workers on the soil? This is presumably post-war policy. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head but this is all that is before us now. This is a proposal for five years ahead. That is what concerns me, because we know perfectly well that all these years we have been fobbed off with that sort of argument. What is the good of putting legislation on the Statute Book if local authorities do not take advantage of it? I want the hon. Gentleman, before we agree to this Clause, to tell us how many


applications are in, from how many counties they have come, if possible what are the counties and what is the total number of houses that are being held up if the Committee does not agree to this Clause.

Mr. Westwood: I cannot give accurate figures at the moment as to the number of applications that are being made by the local authorities. Neither do I want to try to convince the Committee that this is a great contribution in connection with housing. It is not. Difficulties arose because of the outbreak of war and the Act never had a chance to operate as it should have operated but for the outbreak of war. This proposal does not add to the number of houses. What it does is to make provision for new houses to be built in place of houses condemned as unfit for human habitation. If 15 or 20 or 30 houses are built in that way, it means that 15 or 20 or 30 families are going to live under decent conditions instead of under the intolerable conditions of the present time. I do not want the hon. Member, or the Committee, to imagine that we claim this as part of post war housing policy. It has nothing to do with that. It is merely an extension of a date in an Act of Parliament already passed to enable us to do something at least for those who can, and are willing to, come forward to improve conditions of housing in their localities.

Mr. Buchanan: I am really a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to give us the figures, approximately, of the applications, even if they do not amount to a lot. Even if the number was only ten it might give some confirmation. In fact I am getting to the stage that when I get one house in Glasgow, I go home as if I had been born again. I really think he might have tried to give us the approximate number. Is it 15, is it 20?

Mr. Westwood: I am trying to get it for the hon. Member.

Mr. Buchanan: In other areas there is a simpler procedure, if you want the grant to continue, without this business. At least, there is to be an attempt to get us something, and I hope that in Scotland there will be no difference of opinion between what I call the country districts and the towns on the needs for

housing. I feel that there is something here because it is continued from year to year. But I also feel that after the five years, if this goes along, we may be told, at the end, that we have done something for the agricultural workers, when there was the 1938 Act on the Statute Book for two years. If it was an expiring law running out, the demand to pass a completely new Bill would in my opinion have been impossible to resist. You are acting in this matter contrary to what you have done with most other things.
Then, as regards the £200 for the cost of building—not an attractive figure now, in fact it never was attractive—I do ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether, in Scotland, in general, there is not going to be some building even during the war period. If this Measure is to replace what are described as uninhabitable houses, I think that this Measure, even in war-time, is not the only thing to be said about uninhabitable houses in Scotland. I hope the Government have fixed the five-year limit for people living under uninhabitable conditions. I know the Government can find a reason round anything. In fact, I think the Under-Secretary and the rest of them can find a reason for their own existence, which is always difficult. I say it sincerely that I am not against discussing Bermuda or refugees and I am not against the agricultural people, but I often wish I could get the people in the House of Commons and the country to realise our housing conditions in Scotland. I feel that this talking about a five-year plan is trifling with the question. It is the greatest human scourge in the world—the state of housing conditions in my native country. It is terrible and I plead with the Under-Secretary not to talk of this five-year plan. I think that much more urgent is this, the greatest human problem of the moment.

Mr. Sloan: A point was raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on the question of grants. It does not matter whether it is a five- or a ten-year plan or a thousand-year plan. There is no assistance in building houses. It is a very small number that is proposed by the Bill but what about those that will not be in the Bill, costing £10,000 or £12,000 which is the figure we have received? Who


is to meet this cost of about £160 per house? Is it the local authorities? They say no. Is it contended that an agricultural worker with a £3 minimum, is able to pay £60 in rent to be able to live in one of these houses? The number of houses is pettifogging, of course, but the number of houses is far too much if there is not to be some financial measure so that the Committee can be told that there is reasonable possibility of their being occupied. If the rents are to be fixed beyond the limits of what the agricultural worker can pay, then the houses might as well not be built at all. You will not build them any cheaper under this Bill. From which source is the revenue to be found to allow tenants to live in these houses? If there is not a far greater measure of financial support, I cannot see any reasonable prospect of any local authority embarking on a scheme of building.

Mr. Westwood: The local authorities do not build these houses. It is Part II of the Act that is being amended. Under Part 1 of the Act the local authorities do build houses and we have already allocated 200 houses to local authorities.

Mr. Sloan: We have got ten of them for 200,000 population.

Mr. Westwood: No, you have got 20. Under Part II provision is made for £160 for a three-roomed house and £200 for a for a four-roomed or larger house and we are only continuing these grants. We are not seeking to change them. The issue is a perfectly clear one. The Money Resolution now limits us to the contributions which will be paid. These contributions were fixed by the previous Act and I want to point out that the real difficulty of bringing this Bill within the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be the fact that a Money Resolution would be required. We could not get this Bill without the Money Resolution which has already been approved. I understand that there are about 15 applications at present. They are reported to the Department every six months. We do not want to limit within the next five years the numbers of these grants being paid where application is made.

Mr. Maxton: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say what the figures are?

Mr. Westwood: I am sorry I cannot give them.

Mr. Maxton: Surely I am not asking too much in a Committee stage. Does the Under-Secretary say that- he requires notice in advance? Surely he does not want me to give him a month's notice when he is bringing forward a Bill in this House?

Mr. Westwood: All I can say is that I can try to get the information for the hon. Member.

Mr. Maxton: Fifteen applications from 40 counties.

Mr. Westwood: It so happens that there are less than 40 counties in Scotland, so that my geography seems to be all right in that respect if my statistics are not for the time being. I hope that we are going to get this Clause. It is a question of merely changing the date so as to make available the time to continue the grants which have been continued up to the present time for five years. They would cease to operate on 15th July this year unless this particular Clause were approved. I can assure everyone who has taken part in this Debate that this Clause and the Bill will not be allowed to stand in the way of the real problem we have to face as far as post-war housing in Scotland is concerned. I appreciate very much the point made by different Members on this Clause. We are all keenly interested in Scotland in trying to solve our housing problem. I want no obstacle to be placed in the way. This is merely a contribution towards dealing with the problem and I hope that we shall be able to get this Clause.

Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."

Mr. Maxton: I am profoundly dissatisfied that the Government should have brought forward this Measure at this time. It was a bad Bill in principle to begin with. It provided for the spending of public money in converting houses for private owners and making uninhabitable houses habitable and leaving the ownership in the hands of the proprietors—subsidising private owners to put their property in decent repair and to provide decent facilities for their own employees.


You had to bribe Scottish landlords to the extent of £200 a house to make their own cottages decent, and then you left them absolutely in control of these houses.

The Chairman: The hon. Member seems to me to be making what in effect is a Third Reading speech, and I think that if he desires to make any remarks on these lines, they will be more appropriate on the Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Maxton: It is perhaps within the recollection of the House that on the Report stage of this Measure I was preparing to offer a few remarks, but the Chairman suggested that I should postpone them to a later stage. I was saying that the Bill was bad in principle when first introduced, but if my memory serves me correctly the House finally let it go on the Third Reading stage on the plea that is made now, namely, that supposing it only eased the housing situation of rural Scotland infinitesimally it was well worth while. It has eased the housing problem in rural Scotland over a period of five years to the extent of 300 odd houses, and another 200 are in process of construction, that is, 500 in toto. The Minister comes and tells the House that it is urgent, that it should be continued for another five years. It is a bad Bill. He told us in his initial speech on the Committee stage that they were getting new applications, and we all thought of the hundreds of applications coming in from all the counties of Scotland. He is very loth to give figures when pressed about it and says he ought to have notice and so on, and then he produces his mouse—15 applications, from probably two counties of the whole of rural Scotland. I do not know whether he has found yet how many counties are involved in the 15 applications. Obviously, the Bill has exhausted any usefulness it might have had. There have been 15 applications in the last six months. The number will be less the next six months, and yet he is asking the House of Commons to take the responsibility on

its shoulders. Every one of us has to go to his constituency, and he will be asked the question, "Is it the case that in the House of Commons you supported a rural housing scheme for Scotland of such and such a kind?" If we do not protest here, we shall have to admit that it is true that we did support this miserable Measure. The Joint Under-Secretary promises that it is not the post-war housing scheme. I have followed the Government's utterances, and I know the various committees on which he is playing such a very active part, but I do not know the concrete policy of Scottish housing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): This is outside the scope of this Bill, and I am afraid that on the Third Reading the hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I am responding—and perhaps I should not have done it—to the old argument used by the Joint Under-Secretary in commending the Measure to the House, but I merely make the remark in passing that I do not know what is the concrete evidence he has for telling us that we are going to have a different housing policy for the post-war situation. This Bill is bad in principle. It has not produced houses. A large number of us here believe even that when a Bill is bad in principle, if it produced houses in reasonable numbers, that would have excused its vicious principle, but this Bill was bad in principle and produced very few houses and the number it is producing is diminishing and is now almost at vanishing point. If the hon. Gentleman had the courage of his political convictions, he would have stood at that Box and told us that he could not see his way to continue the operations of the Scottish Rural Housing Bill for another period of five years, because it had not justified its existence. I am against the Measure. I only refrain from not voting against the Third Reading because I do not want to put the House to the inconvenience of a Division at this hour, but I want to record very definitely my complete antagonism to the continuation of the Measure.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is purely a Consolidation Bill, the object of which is to put into one Statute what is now contained in three separate Acts of Parliament with regard to the subject of war damage. The usual procedure has been followed, and the Joint Committee have recommended that it is a purely Consolidation Bill and does not change the existing law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of East Retford, a copy of which was presented to this House on 22nd April, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.